Rewards overview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('fetch') but doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when parameters are omitted. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that lists all data types fetched. It's appropriately sized for the tool's scope, though it could be more front-loaded with primary purpose versus secondary details.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 0 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or how optional parameters interact. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool effectively without trial and error.

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 only 25% (only 'userAddress' has a description), and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information. It mentions 'leaderboard' generally but doesn't explain how 'leaderboardLimit' or 'leaderboardOffset' work, or what 'includeLeaderboard' controls. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool fetches multiple reward-related data points (overview, activities, user rewards, pending balances, leaderboard), providing a specific verb ('fetch') and resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'strato.rewards.claim' or 'strato.rewards.claim-activity', which appear to be write operations versus this read operation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), when to use it over other reward tools, or any context-specific recommendations. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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