get_moolah_mining_accruing

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant context: explains the meaning of 'accruingUsd' and 'settlingUsd', the settlement window conditions, the 'globalSettlementStatus' flag, and warns that per-token amounts are provisional. No contradictions with annotations.

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 dense yet concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and uses structured clauses to explain edge cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 lack of output schema, the description fully explains the return values (accruingUsd, settlingUsd, globalSettlementStatus) and their provisional nature. Combined with strong annotations, the tool is well-documented for an agent.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds value by noting the defaults (address defaults to configured wallet, network defaults to mainnet) and the optional nature, which aids agent decision-making.

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 retrieves accruing and settling V2 mining rewards across vaults, specifying the two types with precise definitions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_mining_rewards' by focusing on the V2 mining context and the settlement window 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 explains when to use the tool (to get accruing/settling rewards) and provides detailed accounting logic to avoid double-counting. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, which would improve guidance.

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