heliusCompression

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior ('queries') but does not explicitly disclose whether it's read-only, destructive, or any other traits like rate limits or authentication needs. The minimal context is insufficient.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose and usage guidance. No wasted 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?

Despite the tool's complexity (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is very brief. It does not explain return values, pagination, or how to select among the 22 enumerated actions. The description is incomplete for effective use.

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 only 20%, yet the description adds no information about any of the 15 parameters. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use parameters like 'action', 'args', or 'cursor'.

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 clearly states the tool handles compressed account, proof, balance, and compression history queries for zk-compression state, distinguishing it from standard DAS assets. However, it uses a broad category rather than a specific verb+resource, making it less precise.

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 explicitly says 'Use for zk-compression state, not standard DAS assets,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not elaborate on when not to use it beyond this contrast, but the guidance is adequate.

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