get_auction_state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: the Dutch-auction mechanics, the premium ramp from discount to cap, the fact that the vault pays nothing, and that returns include unsigned approval+bid calldata. It omits auth requirements and rate limits, but the domain behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the prose is dense with domain information rather than filler. It runs long and the closing line ('nothing is paid out of the vault') partially restates earlier context, but every sentence conveys information useful for interpreting the auction state.

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 an output schema present the description needn't enumerate return fields, yet it usefully frames what each row means. Combined with zero parameters and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly complete; the only shortfall is the absence of explicit invocation guidance relative to sibling tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource — 'Read the GBLIN rebalancing auction on Base' — and the following sentences define exactly what the tool surfaces (per-row side, ETH gap, token/amount, unsigned calldata). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_treasury_state or get_governance_state without inspecting the schema.

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 explains the auction's existence condition ('when a basket row drifts past its band'), which implies the tool is worth calling to find rebalancing opportunities, but it never explicitly states when to call it, when not to, or how it relates to alternatives like quote_safe_swap or prepare_action. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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