steward_receipts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it declares the tool free, read-only, and 'never signs or spends', and establishes data authority ('source of truth for settled spend'). It does not disclose return shape, pagination, or result limits, which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, then usage, then the sibling distinction, then safety. Four sentences, all substantive; the only mild redundancy is restating 'in the open' and 'source of truth' twice toward the same point.

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 low-complexity single-param read tool, the description covers purpose, authority, alternative, and safety profile. The remaining gap is the response contents (what a receipt entry looks like), which matters more here because no output schema exists.

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 the single 'wallet' parameter is fully documented with pattern and example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that any EVM wallet can be looked up and adds no format or edge-case detail beyond it — the baseline 3.

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 and resource ('look up any EVM wallet and see every cent it paid') for a named artifact (per-wallet receipts for settled Steward calls). It explicitly differentiates itself from the closest sibling by naming steward_spend_today as the local meter, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit condition ('Use this to verify a payment actually settled') and an explicit alternative with its distinguishing trait ('for this server's own local meter see steward_spend_today'). When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both stated.

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