Strata rewards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully specified. The description adds that it returns rewards season, standings, and owner score, but does not disclose behaviors like pagination or how the limit parameter affects results. Since annotations cover safety, the description's limited additional context earns a middle score.

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 a single, clear sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without any fluff, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level list of results (season, standings, owner score) but lacks details on what the standings include or how the limit affects the response. For a simple read operation with annotations, it is minimally sufficient but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at walletAddress's purpose through 'optional owner score' but does not explain the 'limit' parameter at all. While it partially adds meaning, it leaves one parameter entirely undocumented, so it only partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'the current rewards season, standings, and optional owner score.' It uses a specific verb (read) and identifies the resource, distinguishing it from other listed tools which focus on market data, orders, or referrals. No ambiguity exists.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as strata_referrals or strata_portfolio. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned.

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