get_credit_ladder

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it marks the tool as free, discloses the full return payload, and pre-empts the most likely misread by stating that an unattested wallet yields an empty ladder rather than a failure. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether the call is side-effect free, which would have closed the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the [FREE] tag and the read verb, then a compact enumeration of return contents, then the caveat. Three sentences, each doing work; the parenthetical rung schedule is slightly more detail than an agent needs to select the tool but reinforces the domain concept cheaply.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description substitutes well by describing the returned fields and the empty-ladder semantics. The remaining hole is the wallet parameter's accepted form, which neither the schema nor the description covers, and no mention of cost/rate behavior beyond the [FREE] marker.

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% for the single required "wallet" parameter, so the schema supplies only a bare string type. The description contextualizes that the wallet is an attestation-bearing entity whose ladder is being read, which implies the identifier must map to a known wallet, but it never states the expected format (address vs. agent id) or resolution behavior for an unknown wallet outside the no-attestation case.

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?

"Read the SolvScore micro-limit ladder for one wallet" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the follow-up sentence enumerates exactly what comes back (published rungs, current rung/limit, recent events, underwriting decision). It is clearly distinguishable from the write-side siblings start_credit_ladder and record_credit_ladder_repayment by verb alone, though it never names them.

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?

Read-oriented usage is implied rather than stated: nothing says to call this before starting a ladder, after a repayment, or instead of get_credit_market_stats / get_repayment_incentive_ladder. The one explicit rule it does give is an edge case — a wallet with no attestation returns no ladder rather than an error — which is genuinely useful context but is a behavioral note, not a when-to-use rule.

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