get_jackpot

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real semantic value by explaining that the returned value is the max of a floor (100 USDC on Base / 100 POL on Polygon) and the live jackpot, which is not derivable from annotations or schema.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core definition of the returned value is front-loaded right after the purpose statement.

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?

With an output schema present, return formatting needn't be described, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. The chain/currency floor rule is stated; only the default value and the absence of any error/edge-case behavior (e.g., unsupported chain) leave minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden for the single 'chain' param. It names both chain values and associates each with its currency unit (USDC/Base, POL/Polygon), but never states that the parameter is called 'chain' or that 'base' is the default, leaving part of the semantics undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the effective jackpot') and immediately defines what 'effective' means via the minimum/live-jackpot rule. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_stats or get_draw_history, though it does not name or contrast them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching the current jackpot amount per chain. There is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of when to prefer it over get_stats, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., whether it requires an active draw).

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