spraay_compute_futures_refund

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

Annotations indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) but not destructive. The description adds cost information ($0.01 USDC per call) and clarifies the refund goes to the original depositor. No contradictions, but the added value beyond annotations is moderate.

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 concise with three short sentences, each adding information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Minor improvement could be to combine the cost and argument instructions.

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 simple refund tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic action and cost. However, it does not explain the parameters or what the output contains, relying on the schema and output schema which are present. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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% but parameter descriptions are minimal ('caller parameter' and 'futuresId parameter'). The description says 'Provide the listed fields as typed arguments' but does not explain the meaning of the parameters or how they should be used, providing little additional value.

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 action 'Refund unused compute credit balance to the original depositor', using a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like spraay_compute_futures_deposit and spraay_compute_futures_balance.

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 mentions the cost per call but does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it specify prerequisites or conditions for use. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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