get_locker_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what data is returned (fee, total locks, treasury address) and implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what happens if the contract is not live, or any error conditions. This is adequate for a simple info-getter but not fully transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by usage guidance. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete: it states what the tool does, what data it returns, and when to use it. It does not describe return types or error handling, but for a no-param read-only contract info getter, this is sufficient. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by listing the returned fields.

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. The description does not need to explain parameters. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and no additional parameter information is necessary.

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's function: 'Get LPLocker contract info — current fee, total locks, treasury address.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('LPLocker contract info'), and the list of returned data distinguishes it from siblings like lock_lp or get_lock, which handle individual locks or actions.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use to verify the contract is live and check fees before locking.' This gives a clear when-to-use scenario, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the sibling tools are obviously different (locking, withdrawal, extending), the guidance is sufficient.

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