q402_agent_spend_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and states 'Read-only and free: any live API key (Trial or Multichain)', disclosing safety and auth requirements. It also explains attribution nuances, but does not cover pagination or rate limits, which are minor for a simple report tool.

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 three sentences, each adding value: core report content, example use cases, and attribution/safety. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and has zero fluff.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned (spend, tx count, label, caps), when to use it, and its safety profile. There are no major gaps.

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 single parameter 'window' is fully described in the schema with an enum and default. The description adds only an example ('this week'), which is minor, but since schema coverage is 100%, 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Per-agent spend report') and clearly states what it shows: USD spent, tx count, labels, and caps for each Agent Wallet. It also includes example questions, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool through example questions ('what did my Research agent spend this week?') and explains the attribution model for precise per-agent reporting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the use case is well implied.

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