reputation_statement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return composition and one important exclusion, which is genuine value, but says nothing about permissions/auth, whether the read is safe, or any rate limits — gaps a read tool with zero annotation coverage should ideally cover.

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?

Two compact sentences, with the primary content (position + ledger) front-loaded and the exclusion appended. The '[Wicked Reputation]' tag prefix is mild noise but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must characterize returns; it names the ledger event types and one exclusion but omits formatting, pagination, or completeness guarantees. Adequate for a simple 1-param read tool, but not thorough.

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?

Single parameter 'wallet' has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail for the parameter. Baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (an agent's full position) plus the concrete contents of the ledger (stakes, unstakes, withdrawals, slashes). It is distinguishable from siblings like reputation_query and reputation_status by content, though it doesn't explicitly name what makes it different from them.

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?

Adds a scoping exclusion ('Does not include WickedAPI call volume or fees — see the note field'), which implicitly routes the agent for those data points. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the several sibling reputation_* tools, leaving selection to inference.

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