azeth_get_weighted_reputation

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description fully compensates by disclosing: (1) safety profile ('read-only', 'No private key or gas required'), (2) calculation methodology ('weighted average where each rater's influence is proportional to their USD payment'), (3) return value structure ('weightedValue (int256), totalWeight, and opinionCount'), and (4) filtering behavior for empty raters array.

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?

Well-structured with clear logical sections: purpose, usage trigger, return semantics, behavioral note, parameter guidance, and examples. Every sentence conveys unique information. Examples are appropriately placed at the end without cluttering the core description.

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?

Comprehensive for a read query tool. Since no output schema exists, the description commendably documents the return structure (int256 values, counts). It compensates for missing annotations with safety disclosures. Minor gap: it doesn't mention the chain parameter's default behavior (though the schema covers this thoroughly).

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 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable semantic context beyond the schema: it explains the default behavior when raters is empty ('Leave raters empty to aggregate across all raters'), and provides concrete JSON examples showing both minimal and full parameter usage patterns. Slight deduction as it doesn't augment the chain parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 precise action (Get) + specific resource (USD-weighted reputation) + source (on-chain ReputationModule). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like azeth_get_active_opinion or azeth_get_net_paid by specifying the unique USD-weighted calculation methodology.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when' guidance ('check the reputation of an agent or service before interacting'), which establishes clear intent. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer azeth_get_active_opinion instead).

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