styx_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a read-only status check, but it does not explain what the response contains, what statuses may be returned, whether errors occur for invalid IDs, or whether one of the two optional parameters must be supplied.

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?

The first sentence is front-loaded and efficient. The second sentence is a promotional tip for an unrelated tool, which does not help the agent select or invoke styx_status and therefore fails the 'every sentence should earn its place' test.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read-only tool, and the description covers the basic lookup purpose. However, with no output schema, it should ideally describe the returned status information, and it leaves ambiguity around the optional id/txid parameters that could affect correct invocation.

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 schema already documents 'id' as a Styx deposit ID and 'txid' as a Bitcoin transaction ID. The description adds only the useful implication that these are alternatives ('or'), but it does not clarify that at least one is required despite both being optional.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Check the status of a Styx BTC→sBTC deposit.' It also names the two lookup keys, so the agent can understand the tool's core purpose. However, it does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as styx_history or sbtc_deposit_status, which keeps it below a 5.

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 description implies usage by saying the deposit can be checked 'by deposit ID or Bitcoin transaction ID,' but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like styx_history or sbtc_deposit_status. The tip about earning_opportunities is unrelated to invoking this tool and does not clarify usage.

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