thryx_claim_referral

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the fee calculation but does not mention that claiming is a financial mutation, whether authentication is required, if fees are cleared after claiming, or any side effects or failure cases. 'No body required' only addresses request format, not behavioral implications.

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 one tightly scoped sentence plus a short note: 'Claim accumulated referral fees (5% of protocol fees on trades made by accounts you referred). No body required.' Every clause adds value—purpose, fee formula, and a practical invocation detail—with zero wasted words.

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 covers the core purpose and the fee formula, and it mentions the body is not required. However, it lacks context about the claiming process itself, such as whether funds are transferred to the referrer's balance, whether the action is irreversible, or any account prerequisites. This incomplete context limits an agent's ability to predict the outcome and side effects.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-related semantics (there are none), and the 'No body required' note is about the HTTP body, not parameters. It adequately covers the empty schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's action: 'Claim accumulated referral fees' with a specific resource and an explanatory formula. It differentiates from sibling 'thryx_claim' by specifying 'referral fees' and providing a 5% fee rate detail.

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?

Usage context is implied by the name and description—you use this when you have referral fees to claim. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of exclusions, though 'No body required' gives a lightweight invocation hint.

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