Read Strata maker reputation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable context: the data is public by wallet address and requires no signature, and enumerates the specific reputation aspects returned. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose (reliability, participation, tier, signed-quote eligibility) and adds key context (public, no signature). No filler or redundant content.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what data it returns, and the access requirement (public, no signature). It covers both parameters implicitly and is complete for the agent to understand the tool's role.

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 0%, but the description explicitly maps both parameters to their purpose: 'market' for marketId and 'wallet address' for walletAddress. It clarifies that access is public and no signature is needed, adding meaning beyond the schema's type/pattern constraints.

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 tool reads a maker's reputation metrics (reliability, participation, tier, signed-quote eligibility) for a single market. It is specific about the resource (maker reputation) and scope (one market), distinguishing it from siblings like strata_market_making_status which focus on status.

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?

It indicates the tool is read-only and public (no signature), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the clear scope (maker reputation in a market) provides context for selection.

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