get_onchain_anchor

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses return structure, the anchored=false scenario, and that off-chain signatures remain valid. No contradictions. Missing details on rate limits or authorization, but for a simple read tool, this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. Purpose, verification rationale, and edge case are each addressed efficiently. Front-loaded with key 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?

The description effectively explains return values and behavior despite the absence of an output schema. Covers the primary use case and exception case completely for a read tool with one optional parameter.

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?

Only one optional parameter (protocol_slug) with schema description referencing list_signed_rwa_attestations. The tool description adds that it defaults to most recent, which is value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves the on-chain anchor (Base tx hash, block, explorer URL) for a signed RWA attestation, distinguishing it from sibling tools that return the attestation itself.

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?

Explanation includes why to use it (independent verification of content hash anchorage) and the edge case where anchored=false. Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but sibling context fills that gap.

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