BYK Data Layer: on-chain proof that a ByKaranteli number was sealed, signed and anchored on Solana and Base

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the 5-minute sealing cadence, Merkle root signing, Solana write and Base attestation, per-mode return shapes, and the meaning of result ANCHORED. This is rich, non-redundant transparency.

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 dense but front-loaded with the primary decision trigger and then systematically explains cadence, call modes, and result interpretation. Every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity, but the description is long and could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It does so thoroughly: overview fields, proof contents (value, leaf, Merkle path, signed manifest, signature, anchors), catalog behavior, epoch selection, and the meaning of ANCHORED. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, so individual parameters are already documented, but the description adds significant combinatorial semantics: no arguments yields the stream overview; feed plus asset yields a single record's proof; sequence alone targets one epoch; catalog lists feeds. This goes well beyond the schema and helps an agent choose the correct parameter combination.

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 names a specific verb-resource pairing: retrieving an on-chain proof for a sealed ByKaranteli number. It clearly states the tool's role in the BYK Data Layer and is immediately distinguishable from the many market-data sibling tools because it is about verification/proofs, not metrics.

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 gives explicit when-to-use triggers: user asks whether BYK data can be verified or changed, asks about on-chain proofs, or wants the proof behind one sealed number. It also details different call modes (no args, feed+asset, sequence alone, catalog), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it slightly misses the 'when-not' bar.

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