earn_get_rewards_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (none expected), authentication requirements (beyond the jwt parameter), rate limits, or idempotency. The label '[PRIVATE]' hints at access restrictions but is vague.

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 very concise: three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then lists return fields, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing fields. However, it lacks information on error conditions, pagination (unlikely needed), and explicit authentication requirements beyond the implied [PRIVATE]. For a simple read tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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% and only one parameter (jwt) exists, which is already well-described in the schema. The description adds no new semantics for the parameter beyond listing return fields, which is not directly about parameters.

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'), the resource ('global rewards configuration for Earn/Staking'), and lists the specific fields returned. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'earn_get_position_rewards_config' by indicating this is global, not per-position.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to understand reward configuration for all positions.' However, it does not contrast with the sibling tool 'earn_get_position_rewards_config' or specify when not to use this tool.

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