earn_get_rewards_config

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields, the global scope, and the [PRIVATE] marker, which signals sensitive data considerations beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences deliver the purpose, the response scope, and a privacy signal without fluff. The key 'global' and 'all positions' framing is front-loaded.

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 optional-parameter read-only tool, the description sufficiently covers purpose, scope, and returned fields despite lacking an output schema. It could be slightly more explicit about how this differs from the position-specific sibling, but that is not a major 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the only parameter, jwt, and the schema already explains it as an optional session token. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets global rewards configuration for Earn/Staking, which identifies the resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling earn_get_position_rewards_config by emphasizing 'global' and 'all positions'.

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?

It explicitly says to use this to understand reward configuration for all positions, providing a clear intended context. It does not explicitly mention the position-specific sibling as an alternative, but the global versus position scope is strongly implied.

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