stackspot_join_pot

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the whole burden and does well: it discloses that STX is locked for the cycle, that all participants recover principal, that only the VRF-selected winner gets sBTC yield, and that mainnet and a funded unlocked wallet are required. It does not say whether joining is reversible (a cancel_pot sibling exists) or what the call returns, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Well front-loaded: purpose first, then mechanics, then parameter formats, then prerequisites and network constraint. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is cross-promotion that does not help an agent invoke this tool and is the one sentence that does not earn its place.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers locks, payouts, prerequisites, and network scope, which is most of what an agent needs. Missing are the transaction/gas implications and whether a cancel path exists, which matter for a fund-locking write.

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 largely restates the schema: the bare-name-or-fully-qualified example and the micro-STX conversion note both already appear in the property descriptions. It adds no format edge cases or validation rules beyond structured data, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Joins a pot by contributing STX') and immediately explains the mechanism, which makes it unambiguous against siblings like stackspot_start_pot, stackspot_cancel_pot, and stackspot_claim_rewards. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions — unlocked wallet with sufficient STX, mainnet only — and a pointer to earning_opportunities for related discovery. It stops short of explicit routing ('use stackspot_list_pots to find a pot', 'use stackspot_cancel_pot to exit'), so the when-not guidance is incomplete.

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