stackspot_get_pot_state

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does state the deployment constraint (mainnet only) and roughly what the call returns. It does not say whether the pot must be started/exist, what happens on an unknown contract name, or how state differs before/after a lock — relevant for a lottery pot whose lock status is the field being read.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the contract-name format and the mainnet caveat, all compact. The closing 'earning_opportunities' tip is tangential cross-promotion that does not help invoke this tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the single required parameter is fully covered by schema plus description. The mainnet-only note closes the biggest operational gap; only error/precondition behavior is left unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the description restates the same two accepted formats with the same examples as the schema property description, adding no new meaning. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get full on-chain state for a Stackspot stacking lottery pot,' and enumerates the returned content (value, lock status, configs, pool config, detailed state). It is distinguishable from siblings like stackspot_list_pots or stackspot_join_pot, though it never names them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The mainnet-only note is a genuine usage constraint, and the contractName format guidance tells the agent what input is acceptable. However, there is no instruction on when to prefer this over stackspot_list_pots (e.g., 'use list_pots first to discover a pot name'), and no exclusion conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.