calculate_staking_rewards

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'optional compounding' but the schema requires compounding with 'none' as an option, a slight misrepresentation. It does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 short with two sentences, no wasted words, and is front-loaded. However, including the placeholder 'Returns: {initial_amount}' is confusing and detracts from clarity.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not provided), the description only mentions returning '{initial_amount}', which is likely incomplete. It lacks details on the full output structure, state changes, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the format of APY or duration. It does not compensate for any gaps.

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 calculates staking rewards with optional compounding for a given APY and duration. However, it mentions 'Returns: {initial_amount}' which is potentially misleading as it likely returns the total amount after rewards, not just the initial amount. It is specific to staking rewards among many siblings but does not differentiate itself 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?

The description guides users to 'See list_bundles for related 'crypto' calculators', implying this is one of many crypto calculators. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, missing clear usage context and exclusions.

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