claim_payout

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

With no annotations, the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Claim your USDC payout' without mentioning side effects like irreversibility, idempotency, wallet requirements, or error behavior if conditions are not met. This is a significant gap for a financial action.

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 one sentence of ten words, front-loading the verb 'Claim' and immediately specifying the target and condition. There is no wasted language or repetition, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the core use case clearly. However, the operation involves financial payout, and the description lacks important context such as side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. Given no annotations or output schema, this is a moderate gap.

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?

The schema only describes contest_id as 'The contest ID,' but the description adds that the ID should refer to a completed contest where the user placed in the money. This extra context helps the agent select the correct contest and understand the parameter's purpose.

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 specific verb 'Claim' with a clear resource 'USDC payout' and the condition 'for a completed contest where you placed in the money.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enter_contest or get_results. It is clear and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after a contest is completed and the user placed in the money. It implies these prerequisites but does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_results first to verify placement.' This is clear context, though not exhaustive.

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