nwc_budget_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Show' implies a read-only operation, and the field list clarifies what is returned. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, or disclose whether the data is real-time or cached, which would add valuable behavioral context.

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 sentences, the first front-loads the purpose and lists the returned metrics, the second offers a practical usage hint. Every word earns its place; 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 simple 0-parameter status tool, the description is quite complete. It covers what is returned (the field list serves as a de facto output contract), when to use it, and the overall purpose. It does not discuss errors or pagination, but those are unlikely to matter for a read-only status check.

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 zero parameters, and the empty schema is fully covered. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter details because none are needed. It appropriately focuses on output semantics instead.

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 opens with 'Show the current spend-budget state,' using a specific verb and resource. It enumerates five distinct budget metrics (rolling-24h spent, daily cap, lifetime spent, optional total cap, per-invoice max), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like nwc_get_balance or nwc_list_transactions.

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?

It explicitly states a use case: 'Useful before attempting a payment to know whether it will be allowed.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool, but it does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, stopping short of a full 5.

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