spraay_compute_futures_execute

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds transparency by disclosing that the call costs $0.001 USDC and deducts from prepaid balance, which is critical for a write operation affecting finances. However, it does not describe potential errors (e.g., insufficient funds), return value format (though output schema exists separately), or side effects beyond the deduction.

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 two sentences: first states purpose and cost, second instructs to provide arguments. It is somewhat concise but lacks structure; no paragraphs or bullet points. Could be improved by front-loading the essential cost info, which it does, but missing important details like parameter description or usage context.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, write operation with financial impact, existence of output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'futures' means, how the compute job works, how to use the parameters effectively, or what the return value indicates. The presence of an output schema mitigates this slightly, but the description should provide more context for the agent to use correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage but all parameter descriptions are tautological (e.g., 'type parameter'). The description only says 'Provide the listed fields as typed arguments,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. For a tool with 5 parameters (including non-obvious ones like 'messages' vs 'prompt'), the description should explain the role of each field, especially since the schema descriptions are unhelpful.

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 states 'Run a compute job and deduct cost from the prepaid balance,' which clearly indicates the action (run compute) and the resource affected (prepaid balance). It also mentions cost per call. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from other compute-related siblings like spraay_compute_batch or spraay_compute_text_inference, so the purpose is clear but not fully distinguished.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions cost deduction and that the user should provide fields as arguments, but does not specify prerequisites (e.g., sufficient balance) or conditions (e.g., when to choose this over spraay_compute_estimate). No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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