stackspot_list_pots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that this is a read of enumerated on-chain values, the specific fields returned (contract ID, config, STX value, lock status), and the mainnet-only constraint. It does not mention pagination or scale of results, a minor gap for a list-all tool.

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 list action, then useful domain background and return-field summary. The closing earning_opportunities tip is mildly tangential and doesn't earn full space, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 no-param, no-output-schema list tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is returned, what a pot is, and the mainnet-only limitation. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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+resource ('List all known Stackspot stacking lottery pots with current on-chain values') and defines what a pot is, so an agent understands both the action and the domain. The plural 'all known' distinguishes it from the singleton stackspot_get_pot_state sibling.

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 availability note is a useful constraint, and the Tip routes to earning_opportunities, but that tip is a tangential cross-sell rather than a real alternative for this capability. It never explicitly contrasts with stackspot_get_pot_state (single-pot inspection), so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is only implied.

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