Read Frantic ledger

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

The annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar for the description is lower. It adds value by disclosing that the ledger is 'public' (no auth expectation) and that the feed is composed of receipt-backed events, which tells the agent what kind of data to expect.

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, well-constructed sentence contains the full claim: the verb, the resource, the public scope, and the output format. There is no filler, and the key distinction ('public', 'receipt-backed') appears early, making the intent immediately scannable.

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?

For a zero-parameter read whose safety profile is carried entirely by its annotations, this is nearly complete. A field-level specification of what the events contain is absent, but in an open-world context with no output schema this is a minor gap; there is enough information to invoke the tool, and the described output format gives a reasonable expectation of the result shape.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description legitimately does not need to explain parameter behavior.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read the public Frantic ledger feed.' It immediately distinguishes what this tool operates on (the ledger feed) from other reads like read_board or get_posting, and signals that the output is structured receipt-backed events. An agent can understand what it does and how it differs from siblings at a glance.

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 makes the implied use case clear (obtain the public ledger feed as structured events) but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it state exclusions. There are no prerequisites or timing cues to indicate it should or should not be called in specific contexts.

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