Prepare a Bopster claim

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses the non-custodial model, says the server never holds keys or sends anything, explains the ordered transaction flow, and notes that it reports why there is nothing to claim. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a transaction-preparation tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: it leads with the purpose, then explains transaction ordering and the non-custodial guarantee. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition.

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 claim-preparation tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, sequencing, edge case when there is nothing to claim, and the non-custodial safety model, leaving no critical gap for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the market and wallet parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add further parameter semantics beyond the schema's contract address and signer/position-reading explanations, making baseline 3 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 action: determine what a wallet can withdraw from a Bopster market and build unsigned transactions for claim()/claimRefund(), including finalize or emergency refund when needed. This clearly distinguishes the tool's claim-focused scope from sibling preparation tools such as prepare_finalize.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to work out a wallet's claimable amount and assemble the ordered transactions, including settling first when the market is ready but un-finalized. It does not explicitly name alternatives like prepare_finalize or quote_position for previewing, so there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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