fdc_get_attestation_proof

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

Discloses the local Merkle proof verification and trustlessness regarding the DA response. Without annotations, this provides good behavioral context, though it omits potential errors or permissions.

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?

Single sentence that front-loads the action and includes key details (verification, trustless). Could be split for readability but is acceptably concise.

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?

Covers the core purpose and verification aspect adequately, but lacks parameter descriptions and any indication of return value or error states. Output schema is absent, so description should compensate.

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 description provides no explanation of the three parameters (network, voting_round_id, abi_encoded_request) despite 0% schema coverage. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter meaning.

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 and locally verifies an FDC attestation proof from the Data Availability layer, distinguishing it from siblings like fdc_request_attestation (which likely only requests) and fdc_bulk_proof_bundle (bulk).

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 implies usage for retrieving and verifying a single proof for a finalized round, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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