get_candidate_money

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

No annotations are available, and the description only notes that 'requires WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY' and warns 'PAID ($0.01)'. It does not specify whether the operation is read-only, whether it deletes/overwrites data, rate limit, or side effects.

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?

A single efficient sentence, values are separated by dashes; important empty payment notice is leading.

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?

Although the tool has a clear domain and data includes the cycle and office filter, there is no output cardinality/schema, and only a reduced indicator of auth. There are sibling tools, but not explicitly referenced.

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 schema has 3 parameters and 67% coverage. The description adds the distinction 'fuzzy name vs exact ID', but otherwise 'optional office field' and parameter names and their descriptions are all you get. The description does not fully fill the missing schema entries.

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?

Description begins with 'PAID ($0.01)' and specifies a concrete action and object: 'Campaign finance totals for a US federal candidate: receipts, spending, cash on hand, debts, individual vs PAC split, per recent cycle.' It clearly identifies the subject matter and lists concrete fields. Differentiates from siblings by finance focus, but no explicit comparison to other tools.

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 states that you pass a name (fuzzy) or exact candidate_id, and says office preference is optional. It does not explicitly explain when to choose one tool over siblings, nor does it specify any alternative.

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