earn_get_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds useful return-content context such as breakdown by symbol and overall performance, but doesn't describe pagination, auth nuances, or other behavioral traits. 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?

The description is three short sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is actionable and efficient.

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-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately states the resource, scope, and return content. It could mention an explicit response structure or auth caveats, but given the simplicity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently 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 description coverage is 100% for the only parameter, jwt, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('View') and resource ('summary of accumulated rewards in Staking/Earn') and clearly specifies what it returns: total rewards, breakdown by symbol, and overall performance. It also indicates scope across all Earn positions, which helps distinguish from position-level tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

Provides clear usage context with 'Use this to see your total staking rewards,' which tells an agent when to choose this tool. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the 'across all Earn positions' phrasing implies separation from position-specific tools.

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