share_skill_with_peer

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the referral code is a label inside the seed, never written into a transaction, and no fee is paid for it — an important reassurance against misreading the code as an on-chain action.

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?

Front-loads the generation purpose and what the seed contains, then the referral-code clarification, then the usage trigger. Slightly dense but every sentence carries weight and none is filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers what is produced, the semantics of the referral code, and when to invoke it, leaving only minor gaps such as the size or format of the generated seed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with caller_wallet hashing into the referral code and peer_context/example_amount_usdc fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the referral-code derivation but adds no format, syntax, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource ('Generate a portable skill seed') and enumerates what the seed contains (example transaction, install instructions, referral code). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling treasury-operation tools, which read/plan/execute rather than produce a shareable artifact.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'when you encounter another agent that lacks GBLIN treasury capabilities, or when a delegated task requires treasury management.' Clear context, though it names no alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case.

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