Strata Points

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: current-week activity is provisional until finalization time, owner balance is immutable, and standings are bounded. This temporal nuance is valuable for interpreting results and is not present in 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?

The description is two sentences with high information density and no filler. It front-loads the primary action and resource, then packs the key outputs and behavioral caveats into a compact, readable format. Every clause adds value.

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 aggregate tool, the description covers the output semantics well: timing, budget, weights, balances, standings, and provisional activity. However, the two optional parameters are entirely undocumented, and there is no output schema to compensate, leaving an agent uncertain about how walletAddress and limit affect the result.

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% and neither parameter (limit, walletAddress) is explained in the description. The description mentions a 'complete' fleet-wide read, but does not clarify whether walletAddress filters the response or what limit controls. The description provides no meaning beyond the raw schema 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 opens with a clear verb ('Read') and a specific resource: the complete fleet-wide Points program. It enumerates the exact contents (season/epoch timing, weekly budget, allocation weights, standings), which makes its purpose obvious and differentiates it from sibling tools focused on markets, trades, or quotes.

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 scope is implied: 'complete fleet-wide Points program in one request' and 'All live markets participate' suggest this is the aggregate points overview tool rather than a per-market or per-wallet detail tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any sibling tools or exclusion cases.

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