earn_get_position_rewards_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description adds value by specifying what the response contains (reward symbol, amount, converted fiat) and flags the data as private with the [PRIVATE] marker, though the marker's implications for authentication are left unexplained. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Roughly 50 words, front-loaded with the core purpose and return value. The user_currency sentence partially duplicates the schema, and the trailing [PRIVATE] tag is cryptic, but overall the description earns its length.

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 read-only 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, and the prerequisite workflow. The main gap is that [PRIVATE] suggests access restrictions but the description never says whether authentication is required despite the jwt parameter existing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild value by clarifying that user_currency drives fiat conversion and that position_id originates from earn_get_positions, but it largely mirrors what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb (Get), resource (rewards summary for a specific Earn position), and the returned payload (reward symbol, amount, converted fiat amount). This scope cleanly distinguishes it from siblings such as earn_get_positions (lists positions) and earn_get_position_rewards_config (position config, not reward values).

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?

Explicitly sequences the workflow: 'Use earn_get_positions first to get the position ID.' This tells the agent the prerequisite call. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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