cosmos_get_rewards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'get' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't explicitly say that, nor does it describe the return format, units of rewards, or behavior for zero rewards. Lacks behavioral detail beyond the bare operation.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it is slightly too terse to include important context like the chain or what 'pending' implies, but as a brevity measure, it earns a high score.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the function returns (e.g., a number, an object), whether it's a read-only query, or any chain-specific behavior. For a tool with two parameters and a simple purpose, this is still insufficient for an agent to fully understand expected behavior.

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 100%, with both 'chain' and 'address' having descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema already explains that address is the delegator address and chain defaults to cosmoshub.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('pending staking rewards'), and the target ('for an address'). It distinguishes from related tools like cosmos_get_delegations (which gets delegations, not rewards) and claim_staking_rewards (which claims rewards, not just gets them). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the Cosmos chain, though the tool name implies it.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, whether it differs from cosmos_get_delegations or claim_staking_rewards, or when the chain parameter should be overridden. Agents are left without context for selection.

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