Read Strata maker status

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

Beyond the read-only annotation, the description adds specific behavioral details: it is public by wallet address and requires no signature. It also enumerates the data returned (products, live exposure, health, kill state), which is not covered by 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?

The description is concise, one sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavioral traits without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to read.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description covers essential context: what data is returned and that it is a public, read-only operation. It does not mention error cases, but that is not critical. The absence of an output schema is somewhat compensated by listing the output fields in the description.

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?

The description provides some semantic context for the parameters: it implies that 'walletAddress' identifies the maker and 'marketId' identifies the market. However, it does not explicitly map these names, and the schema itself lacks parameter descriptions, so the description only partially compensates.

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's function: it retrieves a maker's products, live exposure, health, and kill state in a specific market. It also indicates it is public and requires no signature, which precisely defines the operation.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that it is public and requires no signature, which gives some usage context, but it does not differentiate it from other maker-related tools like reputation or order queries.

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