get_mining_rewards

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

Annotations already declare safe read behavior (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by specifying the returned data (unclaimed rewards, mining APY, reward breakdown) and the data source ('from API'), providing context beyond annotations without contradiction.

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 two efficient sentences with no extraneous words. The key action and return values are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the essential information for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 100%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'Leave empty to use configured wallet' is duplicated from schema). No additional parameter details or constraints are introduced.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'mining rewards for supply markets' with specific examples like USDD and WBTC. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_claimable_rewards by focusing on read-only retrieval of unclaimed rewards and APY, but does not explicitly contrast with all similar mining-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_claimable_rewards or get_moolah_mining_accruing. It lacks prerequisites, context for when to call, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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