trigger_distribute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals the permissionless nature, the exact distribution mechanics (1% to creator, 1% to team, 8% buy-and-burn to 0xdead), and the minimum ETH threshold. It does not mention failure/revert behavior or gas requirements, but the primary side effects and constraints are well covered.

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?

Four sentences, each with a distinct job: identify the contract call, state permissionlessness, explain the fund distribution, and specify the execution threshold. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool's name.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema transaction trigger, the description covers the target contract, the permission model, the exact economic effects, and the precondition. An agent has everything necessary to decide whether and how to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, so the description has nothing to add beyond the schema. The baseline score of 4 for a parameterless tool applies, and the description does not introduce any confusing parameter-related claims.

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 precise verb-resource pair, 'Calls distribute() on the RoyaltyDistributor contract,' and then details the exact purpose via the ETH split. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_mint_info and approve_ash, which operate in different domains.

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 states that the tool is permissionless and can be triggered by any wallet at any time, which gives clear context for when to use it. It also provides a concrete precondition ('Requires at least 0.005 ETH'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools are functionally unrelated, so this is acceptable.

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