relay_delx_claim

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

Annotations (all false) provide no behavioral hints. The description adds that it returns relay readiness and manual claim fallback, implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only or if any side effects occur. It lacks detail on error conditions or expected behavior, but is not contradictory.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'relay readiness' or 'manual claim fallback' entail, nor how parameters like epoch, wallet, or response_mode affect the output. Users are left with many unanswered questions.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter described individually. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: a compatibility entry point for claim relay that returns relay readiness and the manual claim fallback. The verb 'returns' and specific resource (relay readiness, manual claim fallback) make the action clear. While it distinguishes from siblings like 'get_delx_claim_proof' by positioning itself as a compatibility entry point, it does not explicitly differentiate among the many sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to or when not to use it, or any trade-offs. The note 'Free.' is insufficient usage guidance.

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