Strata referrals

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with those ('Read'). It adds the specific output detail of 'exact claimable reward atoms,' which is useful behavior information. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource. No fluff.

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 simple read operation with readOnly annotations, the description adequately conveys the purpose and the specific output (exact claimable reward atoms). It doesn't explain alternatives or error conditions, but given the simplicity, it's mostly complete.

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 coverage is 0%; description must compensate. It says 'owner' which implies the walletAddress parameter, but it doesn't explicitly state the parameter is the wallet address or provide any additional meaning about what format is expected or how it relates to the referral state. The description is too vague about the parameter.

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 a specific action ('Read') on a specific resource ('an owner's referral state') and adds a distinct output detail ('exact claimable reward atoms'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like strata_referral_claim (write) and strata_referral_link (generate), which have different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the read-only nature implies it is for checking rather than claiming, it does not mention that claiming should be done via strata_referral_claim or that links are created elsewhere. Without exclusions or alternative recommendations, the agent gets no decision-support.

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