claim_v1_mining_period

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool modifies state. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the routing logic (multi-merkle vs USDDNEW vs main distributor), which goes beyond annotations. It also specifies mainnet-only, a key constraint. The description does not mention gas costs or failure modes, but with annotations present, this is sufficient.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a purpose: action, parameter options, and routing logic. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main use case, parameter approaches, routing, and network restriction. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., eligibility) or output details, but annotations cover the destructive nature. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds value by explaining the preferred usage of key and the routing logic that depends on amount, selector, and distributor. This helps the agent understand parameter interactions beyond the schema, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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 claims a single V1 mining airdrop round via multiClaim() on the appropriate merkle distributor. The verb 'claim' paired with the specific resource 'V1 mining airdrop round' and mechanism 'multiClaim()' makes the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from the sibling 'claim_moolah_mining_period' by explicitly mentioning V1 and routing logic.

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 provides guidance on using the key from get_claimable_rewards (preferred) or directly supplying merkleIndex/index/amount/proof, and specifies mainnet-only. However, it does not compare this tool to other claim tools like claim_moolah_mining_period or explain when not to use it, so the guidance is partial.

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