reputation_transparency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies a passive read of public-facing protocol metrics (no side effects, no mutation), and the field list hints at sensitive surface area (custody model, slash events). However, it never states read-only status, auth requirements, or what 'Live' means in terms of refresh cadence, leaving real gaps.

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?

A single compact sentence with the domain qualifier front-loaded and a colon-delimited field list. Every token carries information; no filler or repetition of the tool name's 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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does double duty as return-value documentation, which it handles well via the field list. But it omits any routing signal among the sibling reputation_* tools, so an agent choosing between them still lacks the information it needs.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to explain and the baseline is 4. The description's enumeration is about returned fields rather than inputs, which is appropriate here.

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 resource (Wicked Reputation transparency numbers) and enumerates the exact data exposed — treasury address, custody model, unbonding cooldown, stake, agents, slash events, founding slots — which meaningfully distinguishes it in content from siblings like reputation_status or reputation_tiers. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'returns'), but the scope is still clear enough for an agent to know what it fetches.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the four sibling reputation_* tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the field list. That is no guidance, not implied guidance.

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