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 only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds non-obvious behavior such as the 5-minute sealing cadence, Solana mainnet writes, daily Base attestation, and the meaning of result ANCHORED. It also describes what the overview and per-record proof contain, going well 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?

The description is front-loaded with the call condition and then covers invocation modes and return meaning without obvious filler. The prose is dense and could be split for readability, but every sentence contributes relevant information.

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 complex proof/verification tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return context: overview fields, record proof components, anchors, and verdict meaning. It also covers the main invocation modes, leaving little an agent needs for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3; however, the description adds semantic argument combinations beyond the schema: no arguments returns the stream overview, feed+asset returns one record at the newest epoch or at sequence, sequence alone returns one epoch, and catalog lists feeds. It does not add format details for each parameter, but the schema already covers those.

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 states a specific resource and action: it returns on-chain proof for a sealed ByKaranteli number, either as a stream overview or as a per-record Merkle/signature proof. It distinguishes this verification/proof tool from sibling market-data getters by focusing on seals, Merkle roots, signatures, and Solana/Base anchors.

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 gives concrete triggering questions such as whether ByKaranteli data can be verified or was changed afterwards, and it explains argument modes: no arguments for overview, feed+asset for one record, sequence for one epoch, and catalog for the feed list. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use this tool versus sibling data tools.

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