earn_get_position_rewards_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, or authentication requirements beyond a vague '[PRIVATE]' tag. Basic transparency is present but could be improved.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, return details, and usage context without any fluff. The most important information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with 2 parameters and high schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit read-only designation but otherwise provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying where to get the position_id (from earn_get_positions) and explains that jwt is optional. This integration hint exceeds mere schema duplication.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'rewards configuration for a specific Earn position'. It details what is returned (reward calculation rules, APY details, position-specific staking parameters) and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it is for a specific position and referencing earn_get_positions as a prerequisite.

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 says 'Use earn_get_positions first to get the position ID', providing clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare alternatives like earn_get_rewards_config (without 'position').

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