Get faucet status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains that the faucet is on-chain rather than HTTP, and that withdrawals require a signed transaction with a funded fee payer. This discloses behavior not captured by annotations and helps the agent understand the operational context.

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 two sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second clarifies read-only status and provides a path for the alternative action. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundant wording.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description provides complete information. It explains the expected output (balance and withdraw limit) and gives essential context about the on-chain nature and withdrawal process, making the tool fully usable.

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 zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead focuses on what the tool reports. No parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and identifies the exact resource ('on-chain Thru faucet account') with the precise data it returns ('current balance and the per-transaction withdraw limit'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_account or get_transaction, which are general-purpose.

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?

It explicitly states the tool is read-only and contrasts it with the alternative for withdrawal: 'Thru exposes no HTTP faucet, so actually withdrawing requires submitting a signed transaction to the faucet program with a funded fee payer (use the `thru` CLI: `thru faucet withdraw`).' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the exact alternative.

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