xprt_onboard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool detects state and returns a plan, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not detail potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., wallet existence), or rate limits.

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, both essential and front-loaded with the purpose. No wasted words while conveying the personalized and state-aware nature of the tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero params, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It could be more complete by mentioning that a wallet context is required, but overall it is sufficient.

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?

With zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the tool automatically uses the current wallet state, so no parameters are needed. This exceeds the baseline expectation.

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 it provides personalized onboarding for XPRT farming by detecting wallet state and returning an action plan. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bridge and wallet utilities.

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 implies usage when the user wants to start farming XPRT rewards, but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention prerequisites like having a wallet connected. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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