Claim Strata referral rewards

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description does not contradict these, but it adds limited transparency by noting that the request requires external authorization, which is a key constraint. However, it does not disclose what happens upon submission, whether it is a state-changing action (consistent with readOnlyHint=false), or what 'prepare' entails. With annotations present, the description covers some but not all context.

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 sentence, no fluff, and front-loaded with the action. However, the phrasing is a bit verbose with 'externally authorized request' and 'currently claimable' but still concise. It could be improved by adding more specifics, but it is not bloated.

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 presence of an authorizationSignature and the prepare/submit pattern, the tool is likely part of a multi-step flow, but the description does not explain the workflow, prerequisites, or what happens next. There is no output schema, and schema coverage is 0%, so more detail is needed to make the tool usable. The complexity is medium (3 params, mutation), but the description falls short.

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%, so the description must explain parameters, but it does not. The description mentions 'externally authorized request' implying that authorizationSignature is needed, but it does not clarify the exact role of each parameter: walletAddress, payoutWalletAddress, and authorizationSignature. The schema has regex patterns but no descriptions, so the agent must infer meaning from the name alone.

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 uses the verb 'prepare or submit' and identifies the resource as 'an externally authorized request for currently claimable referral rewards.' This includes the scope ('currently claimable') and hints at the external authorization requirement. However, it does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like strata_referrals or strata_rewards, nor does it specify what 'prepare' means vs 'submit.'

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 provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'externally authorized request' but does not explain what steps precede this or when submit vs prepare is appropriate. No alternative tools are named, and the context of use is only implied by the words 'prepare or submit'.

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