get-available-rewards

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' rewards, implying a read-only query, but doesn't clarify if this is a safe operation, what permissions are needed, how data is returned (e.g., format, pagination), or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (querying rewards with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available rewards' entail, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like safety or performance. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('address' and 'networkName') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'address' relates to rewards or elaborating on 'networkName' usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('all available rewards for an address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'claim-rewards' or 'get-balance', which might involve similar resources but different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare to siblings such as 'claim-rewards' (which might be for claiming rather than querying) or 'get-balance' (which might retrieve different financial data).

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