build_claim_tx

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: the output is an *unsigned* transaction (not a submission). But it omits auth requirements, whether the build step is side-effect free, what happens if no fees are owed, and the return payload shape.

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?

One front-loaded sentence starting with the critical 'Unsigned tx:' qualifier, then the action, then the parameter note. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter tx-builder with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, unsigned nature, and the pad default, but leaves gaps: no return format, no preconditions (accrued fees, wallet context), and no error behavior. Adequate but not complete.

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 coverage is 0% and the single optional enum parameter `pad` is otherwise undocumented. The description compensates well by explaining that `pad` selects v2 (the default) or v1, adding default semantics beyond the bare enum.

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?

States a specific action (build an unsigned transaction to withdraw accrued creator/team/referral fees), which clearly distinguishes it from other build_* siblings like build_buy_tx or build_claim_milestone_tx. The only shortfall is that it doesn't explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, build_claim_milestone_tx.

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 is implied: call this when you need to withdraw earned fees. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must have accrued fees), and no note on what to do with the resulting unsigned tx.

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