cpu_get_syndicate_membership

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a 'Public read,' that a non-member gets a 'not a member' answer rather than an error, and it details the exact return fields for a member (join time, earliest leave time, full syndicate card). This is strong behavioral transparency, though it does not cover edge cases like invalid wallet addresses.

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 and efficiently structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two sentences that elaborate on the response behavior and return fields. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers the call pattern, the two possible response shapes (member vs non-member), and explicitly labels the operation as a public read. The agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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% and the single optional parameter is well-documented in the schema. The description adds the semantic of 'omit address to check your own,' which reinforces the schema description but does not introduce additional formatting or constraints. This aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether a wallet belongs to a syndicate.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like cpu_get_syndicate (which fetches syndicate details) and cpu_list_syndicates (which lists syndicates). The self-check option ('omit address to check your own') adds further clarity.

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 context (checking membership for a wallet) and notes that omitting the address checks your own membership, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like cpu_get_syndicate or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so the agent must infer the appropriate use case.

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