giskard-oasis

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds domain context (Oasis access, ETH/Arbitrum network) but omits behavioral traits: whether this creates new invoices vs retrieves cached ones, expiration times, idempotency, or side effects. 'Get' implies read-only but invoice generation often implies state creation.

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?

Extremely efficient single sentence (12 words). Front-loaded with action verb, immediately followed by value proposition (ETH/Arbitrum) and sibling differentiation. No redundant or filler words.

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?

Appropriate for a zero-parameter tool with existing output schema. Covers payment network, currency, access purpose, and alternative methods. Could enhance by clarifying whether this generates new payment requests or retrieves existing ones.

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?

Zero parameters present, establishing baseline 4 per rubric. No parameters require semantic explanation, and description correctly implies no user input needed to retrieve the invoice.

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 provides specific verb 'Get payment info' and clear resource context 'to access Oasis'. Explicitly specifies 'ETH on Arbitrum' and distinguishes from sibling tool via 'instead of Lightning', clearly positioning against get_invoice.

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?

Implies alternative payment method through 'instead of Lightning', suggesting when to use this vs get_invoice. However, lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance (e.g., 'use when user prefers ETH over Lightning') or prerequisites.

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