get_fdc_proof_status

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 indicates a read operation ('Get'), which is clear. However, it does not disclose potential side effects or error behaviors, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limits. For a simple getter, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 a single sentence of 20 words, front-loaded with the action and key result. Every word earns its place, 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 the moderate complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description states what is returned (Merkle root and finalization status) but not the format. It omits constraints like the positive integer requirement for voting_round_id. It is partially complete but leaves gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters 'voting_round_id' and 'network'. It mentions 'voting round' but does not specify that the ID must be a positive integer, nor does it explain the network enum. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'FDC (protocol id 200) Merkle root and finalization status for a voting round', and the source 'Flare Relay contract'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fdc_get_attestation_proof' by focusing on proof status rather than requesting or proving attestations.

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 context for use is implied: when needing Merkle root and finalization status for a voting round. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Given the sibling tool names, an agent could infer usage, but the description does not provide explicit direction.

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