Read Frantic ledger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the ledger is public (implying no auth) and that results are "structured receipt-backed events", but says nothing about pagination, volume, freshness, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, resource, and result shape are all in the first clause. Every word carries weight.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description is the only source of information about what comes back, and "structured receipt-backed events" is too vague to tell the agent what fields or pagination behaviour to expect. For a zero-param read tool this is adequate but not fully specified.

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 per the baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the empty schema with additionalProperties=false is self-explanatory. No parameter-level elaboration is required or missing.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Read the public Frantic ledger feed") and adds scope ("public", "receipt-backed events"), so the agent knows this is a read-only ledger view. However, it never distinguishes itself from sibling read tools such as frantic.read_board or frantic.read_hire_agents, leaving the agent to infer which feed is which.

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 statement of when to call this versus the many other read siblings (read_board, read_hire_agents, get_bounty, get_claim). Usage is only implied by the name and the word "ledger"; no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no routing guidance are offered.

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