Determine which tokens (stock tokens or USDG) a reward can be paid in and the current amount an agent receives for a given USDG amount. Use to compare payout options.
Stock tokens (and USDG) a reward can be paid in, with the amount this agent would receive right now.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amountUsdg | Yes | reward in USDG, e.g. "10" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It adds that the amounts are agent-specific and current ('right now'), which is useful behavioral context, but it does not state that the operation is read-only or describe the return shape.
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?
One sentence with no filler, front-loading the resource and the real-time agent-specific amount. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool.
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 a one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description should explain what comes back. It does convey that the result is a set of payout tokens plus the agent's current amount, but it leaves the return structure and the meaning of 'Stock tokens' ambiguous.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names the resource (payout tokens a reward can be paid in) and adds the amount the agent would receive, but it never uses an explicit verb like 'list'. Because the tool name supplies the verb and no sibling covers payout tokens, an agent can still identify it, though sibling differentiation is not explicitly stated.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select this over alternatives, and no mention of sibling tools. The only implied usage is if an agent needs to know payout token options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.