thryx_claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the action (claim), the return format (claimed amount + txHash), and prerequisites (API key and creator status). It adds context about the 70% fee accrual, which is useful. However, it does not mention potential side effects, idempotency, or failure behavior (e.g., no fees to claim), leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately gives essential details: fee accrual, return format, and prerequisites. Every sentence earns its place, achieving high conciseness without sacrificing clarity.

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 simple single-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what the tool does, who can use it, what is returned, and a key protocol detail (70% fee). It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could optionally mention error cases or that claiming may be a one-time action.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for tokenAddress ('The token whose creator fees you want to claim'). The tool description adds context about needing to have launched the token, but does not introduce new parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Claim') and resource ('accumulated creator fees for a token you launched'), and clearly distinguishes from sibling 'claim_referral' by specifying creator fees and launching context. It also mentions the return format (claimed amount + txHash), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly states prerequisites: 'Requires THRYX_API_KEY and creator status' and clarifies the scope ('for a token you launched'). It implies when not to use (when you are not the creator), but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. It provides clear context and usage constraints, though not a direct 'use X instead' statement.

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