check_payout

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full burden. It mentions polling behavior and payout_tx when won, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or required authentication. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, so description partially explains return values (payout_tx when won). Mentions polling time. Minor gap: doesn't list all potential response fields (e.g., judging status), but sufficient for core functionality.

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 parameter description 'UUID of your submission entry.' The description adds context about the return value but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 checks judging status and payout for a submitted entry, with specific verb 'check' and resource 'entry'. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., list_active_contests, get_contest_rules) by focusing on payout after judging.

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?

Provides explicit timing guidance: 'Poll after judging_completes_at from the contest.' No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sibling tools don't overlap in function, making usage clear.

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