insumer_ucp_discount

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

With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: read-only check, credit consumption, and return format. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, idempotency, or potential side effects, leaving gaps that annotations would normally fill.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear function, making it highly efficient.

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 the complexity of multi-chain wallet parameters and UCP format, the description provides essential context about output fields and credit consumption. It lacks examples or error handling but is sufficient for a well-documented schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond the schema. It mentions return fields (title, extension field, applied array) but does not elaborate on parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks token-holder discount eligibility in UCP format, specifies return fields, and distinguishes it from insumer_verify by noting the same on-chain verification wrapped in UCP format. This provides a specific verb+resource with differentiation.

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 indicates usage for UCP checkout flows and notes a credit cost, giving clear context for when to use it. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the reference to UCP format and the sibling tools imply a specific use case, making guidance adequate.

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