open_approvals

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: it distinguishes four outcomes, confirms state via on-chain allowance() calls, emphasizes read-only nature, and warns about data interpretation (event vs state). No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden and meets it thoroughly.

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 longer than necessary, including background on ERC-20 approvals that may not be essential. It is front-loaded with a metaphor, but subsequent details could be more compact. Adequate but not optimally concise.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the four outcome states and the on-chain verification method. It lacks explicit detail on the return format (e.g., JSON structure), but covers the essential behavioral context. Missing minor details hold it back from a perfect score.

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% (both parameters documented). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions, meeting the baseline for high coverage but not enhancing it.

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: auditing ERC-20 approvals for a wallet, reporting four distinct statuses. It uses a vivid metaphor ('which doors are open') and explicitly distinguishes itself from tools that might revoke or sign, indicating read-only behavior.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other audit tools). The description explains the importance of approvals but does not compare to sibling tools or specify use cases where this tool is most appropriate.

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