assay_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only offers the terse 'Free.' and a list of returned data. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication or a wallet connection is required, or whether any state is changed.

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 very short and front-loads the 'Free.' qualifier before listing the three key data points. It is economical, though it could be slightly more explicit about what 'Free.' means.

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?

For a parameterless status tool the description is largely sufficient, but without an output schema or annotations it leaves gaps around return format, authentication, and the exact meaning of 'Free.'. It is adequate but not complete.

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, and the description does not need to compensate for any parameter documentation. The baseline of 4 applies; the description simply confirms what the tool returns.

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 what the tool surfaces: current prices, wallet balance, and today's spend against a daily limit. It lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings, but the resource and information scope are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus new_base_pools or verify_claim. The intended use is only implied by the name 'status' and the listed data; no exclusion or alternative scenarios are described.

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