get_voting_power

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the return format looks like, how blockNumber is interpreted (despite schema default), or any network-related nuances. The description is purely functional and lacks context about side effects or operational details.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without repetition or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with 4 parameters and no output schema. The description covers the basic action but lacks details on return values, edge cases (e.g., blockNumber omitted), or how voting power is calculated. For a straightforward query, this is minimally viable but leaves room for improvement regarding expected output and usage conditions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely echoes 'specific block' which matches the blockNumber parameter already described. The schema itself provides adequate parameter documentation, so no significant gap exists.

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 tool's function: 'Get voting power for an address at a specific block.' It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource ('voting power'), and includes the target ('address') and condition ('specific block'), distinguishing it from related governance tools like cast_vote or check_vote_eligibility.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as check_vote_eligibility, get_delegation_info, and get_governance_params overlap in the governance domain, and the description does not clarify how this tool differs or when it should be preferred. The context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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