allowance_export

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the address is safe to share publicly and clarifies the mainnet vs. testnet distinction. This adds useful behavioral context, though it doesn't explicitly state there are no side effects or describe return format in detail, which would push it to 5.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, safety, and mainnet on-ramp context. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what it does, why it's safe, the primary use case (mainnet payments), and warns against a common pitfall with request_faucet. No additional context is needed for an agent to use it 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?

The tool has 0 parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter information because none exists, and it doesn't attempt to invent any.

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 exports the local agent allowance address with a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by identifying the mainnet on-ramp use case, separating it from related tools like allowance_status and allowance_create.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context by explaining when to use this tool (for real USDC on Base mainnet) and contrasts it with request_faucet, which only funds testnet and cannot settle real payments. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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