claim_income

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the call is free, requires no wallet signature, that Crowns pays gas, and that funds are transferred directly to the user's wallet. This fully discloses the tool's behavior and side effects.

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 a single, flowing sentence that is informative but slightly verbose. It could be trimmed without losing meaning, but it remains concise enough for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The description covers the purpose, prerequisites (accrued income and minimum), the mechanism (no gas, no signature), and the outcome (funds to own wallet). Since there is no output schema, it does not need to explain return values, making it complete.

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 only parameter is api_key, which is already described in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Collect your accrued income.' It identifies the specific resource (income) and is distinct from sibling tools like get_wallet or get_inventory.

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?

It explains when to use the tool: when accrued income is available, and provides guidance on how to check (check_in and get_wallet show 'collectable_income'). It also mentions the minimum threshold, which helps the agent decide if it's worth calling.

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