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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating safe reading. The description adds behavioral context: balances are paginated (default 10), and account/contract types are described using chain-appropriate terminology. This supplements the annotation without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: the first delivers the core purpose, the second adds key details on pagination and terminology. No redundant or unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity (pagination, chain-specific terminology), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, address resolution, pagination hints, and terminology guideline. It could additionally mention that the response includes chain type for VM-specific language, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds extra value by explaining pagination defaults (limit=10) and the address format (use 'me' for signer's address), which clarifies usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'account info, token balances, and address profile for an address on a specific chain'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'token_balance' or 'portfolio_get' by covering all these aspects together, and adds specificity about pagination and chain-specific terminology.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., portfolio_get, token_balance). It lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or mention of prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds format-specific context but does not disclose edge cases or error handling. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 simple conversion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention that the output is the opposite format, but the core functionality is clear.

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 schema fully documents the single parameter (100% coverage). The description reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Convert' and resource 'address' with explicit format details ('bech32 (init1...) and hex (0x...)'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like address_validate.

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 implies usage for format conversion but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives. It's adequate but not explicit.

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

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

Annotation 'readOnlyHint' confirms read-only. Description adds that optional chain parameter fetches on-chain profile, providing behavioral context beyond annotation.

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?

Single sentence, 27 words, no redundancy. Efficiently conveys core functionality.

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?

Adequate for a validation tool, but missing return value description (e.g., whether output is boolean or object). With 3 params and no output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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 descriptions cover all params, description adds value by explaining chain parameter's purpose (fetch profile) and providing examples, surpassing baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states it validates Initia (bech32) and EVM addresses, and optionally fetches on-chain profile. Differentiates from 'address_convert'.

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?

Implicitly clear when to use: to validate address format and optionally get chain profile. No explicit exclusions but context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already indicate read-only behavior. The description adds the formatting conversion detail, which is consistent and provides additional context beyond the annotation.

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?

Description is a single sentence with an illustrative example, no wasted words.

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 simple formatting tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand its purpose and usage.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds an example but does not provide additional semantics beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool formats a raw token amount with decimals into human-readable form, with a concrete example. It uses specific verbs and resources, and is distinct from sibling tools.

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 implies usage for formatting token amounts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, it is the only formatting tool among siblings, and the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which is consistent with the description's 'Query'. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, return format) are disclosed, but the description aligns with the annotation without contradiction.

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 concise with two sentences, no wasted words. It could be slightly improved by adding a note about optional parameters, but it is efficiently front-loaded.

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 the 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is adequate but could mention tool's module (authz) or typical use cases. It is minimally complete.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds minimal value by restating the filtering capability, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 queries authorization grants, specifying the verb 'Query' and the resource 'authorization grants'. It also mentions filtering by granter, grantee, or both, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like feegrant_allowances.

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 basic guidance on filtering by granter/grantee, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like feegrant_allowances. Usage context is implied but not comprehensive.

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

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write operation. Description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'single transaction'. Missing details on authorization, fees, failure modes, or effects on balances.

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?

Single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the core action. No redundant phrases; every word serves the purpose.

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?

Description is minimal for a transaction-sending tool with 6 parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain return values, dryRun vs confirm behavior, or error handling. Given parameter richness and lack of output docs, more context is needed.

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% with descriptions for all parameters, so description adds only the batching context. The tool name and description imply the 'sends' array bundles multiple transfers, but schema already captures this. 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?

Description clearly states 'send tokens to one or more recipients in a single transaction', defining the verb and resource precisely. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bridge_deposit, ibc_transfer, and token_transfer by explicitly mentioning batch transaction and multiple recipients.

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?

Description implies usage for sending tokens in a batch, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ibc_transfer or individual token sends. No exclusions or context provided for choosing among siblings.

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

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that it deposits tokens and requires a bridge ID, but does not disclose further behavioral details such as permissions or side effects beyond the state change implied by deposit.

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences, no redundancy, and every word adds value. It efficiently communicates the core action and a key requirement.

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?

The description lacks information about the tool's flow (e.g., simulation vs broadcast via dryRun/confirm) and does not hint at return values. Although the schema covers parameters, the absence of output schema and the brief description leave agents uncertain about expected results.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.

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 deposits tokens from L1 to L2 via OPInit bridge, specifying the action, resource, and direction. It distinguishes from sibling tools like bridge_withdraw and bridge_execute by its specific purpose.

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 mentions the prerequisite of bridge ID but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_withdraw or bridge_transfer_status. Usage is implied but not elaborated.

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

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

Annotations are silent on behavioral traits, and the description only states 'broadcasts' without clarifying safety features like dryRun (previews without broadcasting) or that the tool is write-only. Users need to infer behavior from parameters.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy, and front-loads key purpose. However, it could be more structured or include additional sentences for completeness without being verbose.

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 the complexity (10 params, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is too brief. It omits crucial details like dryRun behavior, output type, and when to use confirm flag. It underperforms for such a critical tool.

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%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on parameter relationships or usage order (e.g., amount in minimal denomination). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the action ('Execute') and resource ('cross-chain transfer') with specific details on automated route finding and broadcasting. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like bridge_route which only finds routes.

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 implies this is the final execution step but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., bridge_route for simulation). It does not mention the dryRun or confirm parameters that affect usage context.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. Description's 'list' confirms read-only nature but adds no extra behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb, no wasted words.

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?

Simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema; description fully explains scope and behavior.

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% with parameter description and enum. Tool description adds no additional meaning beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'List all L2 chains that support OPInit bridging from/to L1.' Uses specific verb and resource, distinguishes from sibling bridge tools.

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?

Implied by purpose: use to discover supported L2 chains. No explicit when/when-not or alternatives, but simplicity reduces need.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no additional safety info needed. The description adds value by explaining the tool's role in discovering valid chain/denom pairs, which is beyond the annotation.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage context. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description sufficiently clarifies what the output represents (assets with chain/denom pairs) despite lacking an output schema. It completes the picture for a simple list tool.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover both parameters completely (100% coverage). The tool description does not add further semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists assets for cross-chain routing, distinguishing it from siblings like bridge_route and bridge_execute. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('assets available for cross-chain routing').

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 explicitly recommends using this tool before calling bridge_route or bridge_execute, providing clear context. It mentions optional filtering but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, though this is inferred from its discovery role.

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

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

Although annotations mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true, the description does not add further behavioral context. It fails to disclose that the tool returns an optimal route (without specifying optimization criteria), whether multiple routes are returned, or any rate-limiting or authentication requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral details without becoming verbose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., route steps, fees, estimated time). It does not mention the default network (mainnet) or that the route is hypothetical and not executed. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

Given 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'amount in minimal denomination', 'source/dest chain ID'). It does not clarify what 'optimal' means in relation to the parameters or how the network parameter affects results.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' and clearly identifies the resource as 'optimal cross-chain transfer route' between two chains. This distinguishes it from other bridge-related tools such as bridge_deposit or bridge_execute, which perform actions rather than querying for routes.

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 like bridge_routable_assets. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing to know chain IDs or token denominations beforehand, nor does it clarify that the tool is read-only and does not execute transfers.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds no additional behavioral traits like rate limits or error handling. It does not contradict annotations, but provides minimal extra context.

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?

Concise, two-sentence description. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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?

Adequately describes tool usage for a simple status check. Lacks explicit mention of return format or possible statuses, but given no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema has 100% coverage, but description adds value by specifying that txHash and chainId come from bridge_execute and clarifying that network defaults to mainnet, enhancing meaning beyond raw schema descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool tracks status of a cross-chain transfer initiated via bridge_execute. Specifically names the verb 'track the status' and resource 'cross-chain transfer'. Differentiates from sibling tools like bridge_execute which initiates the transfer.

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?

Explicitly states to call with txHash and chainId returned from bridge_execute. Gives clear context on when to use the tool, though does not list alternative tools or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself. It does not explain side effects like transaction finality, fees, or required approvals, which are important for a withdrawal operation.

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 sentence with 11 words, conveying the core purpose efficiently without wasted words. It is front-loaded and clear, though it could include a quick usage hint without becoming verbose.

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?

The description lacks information about return values (no output schema), prerequisites, and post-conditions. For a complex operation like bridge withdrawal, users need to know what the tool returns and what happens after execution.

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?

Input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to repeat those details. However, it could add context for parameters like 'chain' to specify valid L2 chains, but it does not. Still, baseline 3 is appropriate given schema completeness.

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 uses a specific verb 'withdraw' and identifies the resource 'tokens', the direction 'from L2 to L1', and the mechanism 'via OPInit bridge'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like bridge_deposit (opposite direction) and bridge_withdrawal_status (status query).

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 mentions OPInit bridge, hinting at a specific scenario, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_deposit or bridge_execute. With many bridge siblings, a usage note would be beneficial.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'List' is consistent. However, the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide, such as pagination behavior, default ordering, or any limitations.

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?

Single sentence with 10 words. No unnecessary information. Efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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?

No output schema, so description should ideally hint at return format or ordering. It doesn't mention default order (though reverse param exists). Among 5 sibling bridge tools, context is adequate but incomplete for a listing tool.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description does not add meaning beyond mentioning 'a specific L2 chain' which maps to the chain parameter. Baseline 3 due to high 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?

Description clearly states 'List L2->L1 withdrawals for an address on a specific L2 chain.' It specifies verb (List), resource (withdrawals), direction (L2->L1), and criteria (address, chain). This distinguishes it from siblings like bridge_withdraw (initiate) and bridge_withdrawal_status (check status).

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 implies usage for listing withdrawals but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_withdraw or bridge_withdrawal_status. No guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint; description adds context that it gets status and details of a withdrawal. No contradictions, but could mention what details are returned or any constraints.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded, no unnecessary words. Efficiently conveys purpose.

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?

Description is adequate for a simple tool but lacks information about the response format or possible statuses. No output schema, so more detail would be helpful.

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 covers all parameters (100%). Description does not add meaning beyond schema; merely restates 'sequence number' which is already in schema description.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'get' and resource 'status and details of a specific L2->L1 withdrawal by sequence number'. Distinguishes from similar tools like 'bridge_transfer_status' and 'bridge_withdrawals'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'bridge_transfer_status' or 'bridge_withdrawals'. Only implies usage by providing a sequence number.

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

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

The description adds some behavioral context by stating it returns a block header and transaction list. Annotations already indicate it is read-only. No additional traits like rate limits or error handling are mentioned, but this is adequate for a simple read operation.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is informative, with no redundant or unnecessary content.

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 simple tool with good schema coverage and annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the core function and usage of the height parameter. A slight addition of what constitutes the 'transaction list' could be beneficial, but current completeness is strong.

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 already provides comprehensive descriptions for all three parameters (chain, height, network) with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a block header and transaction list by height, with an optional parameter to get the latest block. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from other block-related tools like chain_block_results by specifying the content returned.

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 basic usage guidance by noting that omitting height returns the latest block. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like chain_block_results, nor does it specify any prerequisites or limitations.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description is consistent (a read operation). Description adds useful context about the specific data returned (transaction results, validator updates, consensus param updates) beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence that perfectly front-loads the purpose and scope. No redundant or extraneous words.

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?

No output schema exists, but description adequately lists the categories of returned data. The tool is low-complexity (single block result), so missing pagination or limits is acceptable. Could mention optional chain/network parameters but schema already documents them.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely mentions 'given height' which is already stated in the height parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'block execution results', listing exactly what's included (transaction results, validator updates, consensus param updates). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like chain_block which likely returns only raw block data.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving execution results at a block height but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., tx_get for individual transactions, chain_block for block metadata). No when-not or alternative recommendations.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description does not need to repeat that. However, the description adds no additional behavioral traits beyond what is already in annotations. It could mention that the operation is safe and returns data without side effects, but the absence is not a major flaw given the annotation coverage.

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 sentence that immediately states the purpose and key outputs. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 the tool has only 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations provide readOnlyHint, the description covers the essential use case. It mentions the returned data types (VM type, supported features, endpoints), making it mostly complete. A small gap is the lack of explanation about the response format, but without an output schema, the description suffices.

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% (both parameters are documented with descriptions and enums). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. The phrase 'specific chain' loosely aligns with the 'chain' parameter but adds no new detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already fully explains parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get detailed capabilities for a specific chain' with specific verb 'Get' and resource 'capabilities for a specific chain'. It also lists the information provided: VM type, supported features, and endpoints. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chain_list (which likely lists all chains) and chain_block (which gets block data).

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 implies usage when someone needs detailed capabilities of a specific chain, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like chain_list or chain_block. No when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it returns 'accepted denoms and their gas price amounts', providing some behavioral context beyond annotations, but lacks details like output structure or error cases.

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?

Single sentence conveying purpose, returns, and scope. No redundant words. Front-loaded with action.

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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential info on what is returned. Lacks details on unsupported chain handling, but overall adequate.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new semantic info beyond echoing the chain parameter scope; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get', resource 'current on-chain gas prices', and scope 'any chain (L1 or L2)'. It distinguishes from siblings as no other tool provides gas prices.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Sibling tools are diverse but no explicit comparison is made.

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

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

The description does not add behavioral details beyond what the readOnlyHint annotation provides. It does not mention idempotency, side effects, or any constraints, but the annotation already indicates a safe read operation.

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 concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (chain IDs and types). No additional context is needed.

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 schema already describes the only parameter (network) with an enum and default. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action (list), the resource (supported chains in the Initia ecosystem), and the output details (chain IDs and types). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like bridge_list_chains which are specific to bridging.

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 implies that the tool is for getting a list of all chains, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bridge_list_chains or when to avoid it.

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

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

The description adds pagination details and address format flexibility beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It is consistent with the read-only nature and provides useful behavioral context.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and key usage details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description covers the purpose, return items, and pagination. Without an output schema, it adequately describes what to expect, though it could be more explicit about the response structure.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining pagination behavior (default 10, use limit/offset) and mentioning address flexibility ('me'), which complements the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'staking state for an address' with specific items (delegations, rewards, unbonding entries). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'account_get' or 'proposal_get'.

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 explains what the tool returns and pagination usage (limit/offset). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but given no direct sibling for staking state, this is sufficient.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals safety. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., API calls, side effects). It is consistent with the annotation but does not augment it.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and outputs in a compact form.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does. It implies the return value is one of the listed types, which is sufficient for an AI agent to use the 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 already provides a description for the 'denom' parameter. The tool description merely restates that it classifies a denomination string, adding no new semantic information beyond the schema's description.

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 verb 'classify' and the resource 'token denomination', and lists all possible output types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'denom_metadata' which describe rather than classify.

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 implies usage for classification tasks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., denom_metadata for metadata retrieval). No exclusion criteria or context cues are provided.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so description doesn't need to reiterate safety. It adds behavioral context by scoping to 'on-chain bank module metadata' for native denominations, which is a read operation. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, each earning its place. The first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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 simple getter tool with comprehensive schema and annotations, the description is complete. It specifies what is returned (metadata like name, symbol, decimals) and when to use an alternative. No missing information.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 3 parameters. Description adds examples and default values (e.g., 'Defaults to L1 ("initia")' for chain, L2 examples), which adds meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get on-chain bank module metadata for a native denomination (name, symbol, decimals)', which is a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool token_info by specifying it's for native denominations, not contract tokens.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when not to use this tool: 'For contract tokens (ERC20/CW20/FA), use token_info instead.' This directly contrasts with a sibling tool, giving clear alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of 'pending' and 'across all validators' adds some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits such as required authentication or response format, with annotations covering the safety profile.

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, clear sentence that communicates the core purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and concise, though slightly too brief to include additional context.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does not specify the return format (e.g., array of rewards per validator or total amount). For a read-only query tool, this missing information could leave an agent uncertain about how to interpret results, making completeness lacking.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., delegatorAddr's accepted formats). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Get', the resource 'pending staking rewards', and the scope 'for a delegator across all validators'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delegation_get (which retrieves delegation info, not rewards) and staking_manage (a mutation tool).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for querying rewards but lacks guidance on exclusions (e.g., when to use delegation_get or vip_claimable_rewards instead). Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

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

Annotation readOnlyHint:true already indicates a read operation. Description adds minimal context beyond extraction and decoding, but no contradiction. With annotations present, the bar is lower; description adds little extra.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. All information is relevant and front-loaded. Highly concise.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with good parameter descriptions. Missing return value explanation, but no output schema. Could be more complete about what 'decoded' events look like.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds meaning for typeTag (auto-parsed JSON) and chain (L1/L2 examples), providing value beyond schema.

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 it extracts and decodes Move module events, with optional filtering. This differentiates it from sibling tools like event_parse_tx and event_parse_wasm, though not 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. Does not mention when not to use it or provide context for alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds the context of extracting events. It does not disclose additional behavioral details beyond what annotations provide, but is consistent and adequate.

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?

Single sentence with no extraneous words. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

Description is very brief and lacks details on output format, return structure, or any constraints. Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema, more context is needed for complete understanding.

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% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, just reiterating optional filtering. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it parses and extracts Cosmos events from a transaction, with optional filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like event_parse_move and event_parse_wasm by implying a general Cosmos scope, though not 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like event_parse_move or event_parse_wasm. The description does not address when not to use it or provide context for selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds filtering detail (wasm.* event types). No additional behavioral traits like auth or rate limits.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with action. Perfectly concise for the complexity of the 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?

Description specifies input but lacks details about output (e.g., structure of returned events). Since no output schema exists, this gap reduces completeness, though the tool is simple.

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%, so all parameters are described in the schema. Description adds no extra meaning beyond confirming that txHash identifies the transaction.

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?

Clearly specifies extraction and decoding of CosmWasm contract events from a transaction, filtering wasm.* event types. Distinguishes from sibling tools like event_parse_move and event_parse_tx.

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?

Description implies usage for CosmWasm events but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of read-only adds no new safety info. It adds context about chain support (Minievm) and calldata format, but does not explain return behavior or error handling. With annotations covering key traits, the description provides marginal behavioral insight.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose, then details. Every word earns its place.

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, the description omits what the tool returns (the function output), but the purpose is clear from the name and read-only nature. For a simple read call, this is mostly complete. Could mention return value but not critical.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description only mentions ABI-encoded calldata and Minievm chains, which does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 calls an EVM contract function as read-only, distinguished from writes like evm_send and queries like evm_get_logs. The verb 'call' plus 'read-only' and 'ABI-encoded calldata' specifies the action and resource precisely.

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 indicates the tool is for read-only calls and requires ABI-encoded calldata, implying it is not for state-changing transactions (use evm_send). However, it does not explicitly list when to avoid it or compare with other EVM query tools.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by stating the tool uses an ABI and returns decoded event names and args, which is useful beyond the read-only hint.

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 sentence, front-loaded with action and resource, and contains no unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 decode tool without output schema, the description adequately conveys what it returns (decoded event names and args). While more detail on return format would be helpful, it remains clear and complete for typical use.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (mentions source of logs) but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Decode' and the resource 'EVM event logs'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like evm_get_logs and evm_get_tx_receipt by specifying its input nature and output.

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 explicitly states the input source ('from evm_get_logs or tx receipt'), giving clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives like evm_decode_revert.

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so description adds value by disclosing optional custom error decoding with ABI JSON. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with the core action. Efficient and clear.

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 the simple nature of the tool and well-documented schema, the description is sufficient. It might benefit from mentioning the return format, but not critical for agent invocation.

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. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for parameters 'data' and 'abi'.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Decode' and resource 'EVM revert reason', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like evm_decode_logs or evm_call. It also mentions optional custom error decoding, adding precision.

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?

Description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is clear and narrow. No guidance on when not to use it, which is acceptable given its specific function.

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

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., side effects like gas consumption, contract address return, or state changes). With minimal annotation detail, the description should explain more but fails to do so.

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?

Two tight sentences: first states core action, second provides scope. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with critical information.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It lacks details on deployment results (e.g., contract address), required gas/funds, failure modes, or network-specific constraints. It meets the minimum but leaves gaps.

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?

All seven parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value beyond the schema by advising to append ABI-encoded constructor args. However, it does not elaborate on the 'value' parameter's implications or the 'confirm' flag's effect beyond what the schema states.

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 deploys an EVM contract by submitting creation bytecode, with a specific scope ('Available on Minievm chains'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like evm_call (executes calls) and evm_send (sends transactions).

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 only mentions availability on Minievm chains, but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wasm_instantiate or other deployment methods). No guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it is for EVM block info, but provides no additional behavioral details (e.g., return format, pagination). Minimal added value.

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 two sentences, front-loads the key action, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, 84 siblings) and the absence of an output schema, the description could explain what block information is returned (e.g., hash, parent hash, timestamp). It is minimally adequate but incomplete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves EVM block information by number, using a strong verb-resource pair. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like evm_get_tx_receipt and evm_get_code.

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 implies usage contexts through the phrase 'by number' and 'Available on Minievm chains', but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds behavioral traits: returns empty for EOA, chain restriction. No contradiction. Adds value beyond 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?

Two sentences, direct and no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, additional context in second sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool's simplicity (read code at address), description adequately explains functionality, EOA behavior, and chain restriction. No output schema needed as return value is implied.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. Description does not add extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, meeting baseline.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'bytecode deployed at an address'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like evm_get_storage_at and evm_call by specifying the operation and noting it returns empty for EOA, which is unique among EVM tools.

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?

Provides clear context: returns empty for EOA (implying use to check if address is a contract) and availability limited to Minievm rollup chains. Lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is sufficient.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Query... with filters' is consistent but adds no further behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. No mention of pagination, rate limits, or other nuances.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., formatted logs array). For a complex tool, this is a gap, though schema covers parameters well. Moderately complete.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional meaning; 'with filters' is generic. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 queries EVM event logs with filters, and specifies availability on Minievm chains, distinguishing it from siblings like evm_call or evm_get_block which serve different purposes.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., evm_get_tx_receipt) or when not to use it. The description lacks context for selecting the appropriate tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description simply confirms a read operation. It adds no contradictory info and the platform restriction is a useful behavioral note. Still, it could mention potential limits or response format.

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 two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and adds the limitation immediately. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple read-only operation with 4 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and constraints. A minor gap: it does not describe the return value format, but this is simple enough.

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% with descriptive parameter explanations. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., the chain restriction is echoed). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the load.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'raw storage slot of an EVM contract', distinguishing it from sibling tools like evm_call or evm_get_code. The specificity of 'raw storage slot' and the platform restriction 'Only available on Minievm rollup chains' further clarify purpose.

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 indicates when to use (to read a raw storage slot) and provides an important constraint (only on Minievm rollup chains), guiding agents on context. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or a 'when not to use' statement.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the 'Get' operation. The description adds no new behavioral context (e.g., permissions, data freshness, rate limits). Given the annotation coverage, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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 two short, direct sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not mention the return value structure (e.g., receipt fields like status, logs). For a transaction receipt tool, this omission leaves the agent partially uninformed about what to expect.

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 schema already provides clear descriptions for chain, txHash, and network. The description does not add any further parameter details, so it meets the baseline expectation.

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 action ('Get an EVM transaction receipt'), the required input ('by hash'), and the context ('Available on Minievm chains'). This specifically distinguishes it from siblings like evm_get_block or evm_get_logs.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., evm_call, evm_get_logs). The description only notes chain availability, without conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool is state-changing and that the 'confirm' parameter controls actual broadcast vs simulation. This is useful but does not address authentication/signing requirements, gas costs, or error handling. It partially compensates for minimal 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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds essential context (calldata requirement and chain availability). Perfectly front-loaded and concise.

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?

The description is adequate for a mutation tool with comprehensive parameter descriptions in the schema. However, it lacks information about expected return values (transaction hash or simulation result) and does not cover gas estimation or signing requirements. Could be more complete for a novice agent.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description reinforces 'ABI-encoded calldata' but adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Send a state-changing EVM transaction'), the resource ('EVM transaction'), and key requirements ('Provide ABI-encoded calldata', 'Available on Minievm chains'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like evm_call by emphasizing state-changing nature.

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 implies usage for state-changing operations via the term 'state-changing' and the 'confirm' parameter (false=simulation, true=broadcast). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., evm_call for read-only), nor provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's claim of 'query' is consistent and adds no additional behavioral context. No mention of pagination, limits, or response format, which would be beneficial but not required given the 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?

Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and resource. Highly concise.

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 simple read-only query with well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the resource and scope. Could mention that it returns all grants (no pagination implied), but this is minor.

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%: each parameter has a description (grantee as address, chain with examples, network enum). The tool description does not add value beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Query fee grant allowances for an address. Returns all grants where the address is the grantee.' This clearly identifies the verb (Query), resource (fee grant allowances), and scope (address as grantee), distinguishing it from sibling tools like feegrant_grant and feegrant_revoke.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description focuses on what it does but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for related operations (e.g., granting or revoking fee grants).

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

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the constraint that at least one of spendLimit or expiration must be provided, which is useful behavioral context, but lacks details on on-chain effects or required permissions.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's action and key constraint, with no unnecessary words.

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?

The description is incomplete: it does not explain return values, the difference between dryRun and confirm, or what happens after broadcasting. Given the tool's complexity (8 params, no output schema), more context is needed.

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 parameters are well-documented there. The description reinforces the constraint about spendLimit and expiration but adds no new per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 grants a fee allowance for gas fee sponsorship, using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like feegrant_allowances and feegrant_revoke.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor are there exclusions or prerequisites mentioned beyond the implicit constraint about spendLimit or expiration.

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

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond that, such as whether revocation requires the granter's permission or if it is irreversible.

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, well-structured sentence. It is concise and immediately conveys the tool's purpose without extraneous information.

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 the tool's simplicity and the schema's thorough parameter descriptions, the description is adequately complete. It lacks only minor details about the effect on the grantee.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are already clear.

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 action 'Revoke' and the resource 'fee grant allowance', and it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'feegrant_grant' and 'feegrant_allowances' which perform different operations.

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 implies the tool is used to revoke a previously granted fee allowance, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for appropriate use.

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

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false). Description does not disclose that dryRun and confirm parameters control simulation vs. actual broadcast, nor any side effects or required authorizations. The mapping of option numbers is already in the schema.

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?

Short and to the point. The option mapping is listed separately, which is acceptable. Could be slightly more integrated, but no wasted words.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the voting workflow, the need to set confirm to true, the role of dryRun, or that chain can refer to L1 or L2. Leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds the numeric mapping for option, but this repeats the schema's description. Does not add meaning for other parameters like chain, dryRun, confirm, or memo.

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?

Clearly states 'Vote on a governance proposal' with specific verb and resource, and lists the vote options. Distinguishes from read-only siblings like proposal_get and proposal_list.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., voting power, active proposal) or that confirm=true is needed to broadcast.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds minimal behavioral info beyond stating it's a list/find operation. Does not disclose any additional traits like pagination or data freshness, but with annotations the bar is lower.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Purpose and usage are front-loaded. Every sentence is necessary and informative.

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 simple read-only list tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and parameter interplay.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining the dual functionality and the role of the counterparty parameter, which goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it lists IBC channels or finds a channel between two chains, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling ibc_transfer by stating its usefulness before that tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful before ibc_transfer to discover the correct sourceChannel,' providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly list when not to use, but the use case is well-defined.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it computes a deterministic hash, which is useful context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two concise sentences with an example. No wasted words; every element serves a purpose.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description is complete. It explains what it does and provides an illustrative example, though the output format is only implied.

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% with parameter description. The example in the description adds concrete format guidance (e.g., 'transfer/channel-0/uatom'), providing value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Compute' and resource 'IBC denomination hash', with an example distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with IBC transfers or channels.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no alternatives are mentioned, which is acceptable given no direct siblings.

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

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'Send tokens' which aligns. Beyond that, it adds no behavioral details (e.g., that it returns a simulation unless confirm=true). With annotations present, the description offers minimal additional transparency.

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 two sentences long, with no redundant words. It efficiently states the purpose and a usage hint. Every word earns its place.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a transaction hash or simulation result), nor does it discuss the confirm/dryRun flow. The schema hints at this, but the description should provide clearer expectations for a non-trivial operation.

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 does not add meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain how to find sourceChannel or denom details. The description adds no parameter-specific context.

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's purpose: 'Send tokens via IBC to another chain.' It uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('tokens via IBC'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'bridge_route' by mentioning it for automatic path discovery.

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 a clear alternative: 'Use bridge_route for automatic path discovery.' This helps decide when to use this tool versus the sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention prerequisites like having the source channel.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true. Description adds behavioral detail by specifying what is checked (key type and device status), providing useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

Single, complete sentence with no clutter. Every word adds value, meeting conciseness goals perfectly.

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?

Description covers the tool's action and output (key type and device status). With no parameters and no output schema, it is sufficiently complete for a check tool. Minor improvement: could note no input required.

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?

No parameters exist; schema coverage is 100%. Description adds no param info, but baseline for 0 params is 4. No need for further explanation.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Check' and names two clear resources: 'signer key type' and 'Ledger device status'. This differentiates it from sibling `ledger_verify_address` which focuses on address verification, making purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like `ledger_verify_address`. Context (e.g., checking signer key vs. verifying address) is implied but not stated. Agent may need to infer use cases.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds context about the physical verification step on the device, which is not captured by annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Single concise sentence that front-loads the key action and purpose. No extraneous content.

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 parameterless tool with a straightforward action, the description is nearly complete. Minor omission: does not mention that a Ledger must be connected.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so description naturally covers parameter semantics. No need for additional details.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Display address on Ledger device') and the purpose ('physical verification'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'address_validate' or 'ledger_status'.

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 implies its use case (physical verification on a Ledger device) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites.

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

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation, confirming it is a read-only operation. It adds context that the output is human-readable, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No behavioral contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is concise without being under-specified, though it could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose.

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?

The description lacks any mention of the return format or output structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent is left without information on what the decoded values look like or how they are returned, which is a significant gap for a decoding tool.

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 already has 100% description coverage for both parameters (hexValues and types). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Decode' and the resource 'Move BCS bytes', and specifies the output as 'human-readable values'. This distinguishes it from its sibling 'move_bcs_encode', which does the opposite.

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, such as the obvious counterpart 'move_bcs_encode' or other decode tools. There is no mention of prerequisites or contexts where decoding is needed.

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

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

The description only restates the purpose without adding behavioral traits beyond the annotation readOnlyHint: true. No disclosure of side effects, output format, or error conditions is provided.

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 extremely concise: one sentence defining the tool and a second sentence giving a usage hint. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key action.

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 the lack of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description covers the essential purpose and a primary use case. It could be improved by mentioning the output format, but it is still fairly complete for its complexity.

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 provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (values and types), and the tool description adds no additional semantics beyond repeating the encoding purpose. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('encode values to Move BCS format') and the resource ('values'), directly distinguishing from the sibling tool move_bcs_decode. It also mentions the use case of preparing arguments for move_execute.

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 explicitly recommends this tool for 'preparing complex arguments for move_execute,' providing a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools beyond implied contrast with move_bcs_decode.

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

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that it 'converts' (a read-style operation) and specifies chain availability, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or output format. The description is consistent with annotations, no contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that perfectly captures the tool's action and scope. No unnecessary words. The information is front-loaded and concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It states the conversion direction and supported chains. However, it does not explain what a 'Move metadata address' is or what the return value looks like, though the absence of an output schema lowers the expectation. Overall adequate.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema for the parameters (e.g., the 'chain' default is already in schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 converts a token denom to its Move metadata address, with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('denom to metadata address'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'move_metadata_denom' (likely reverse) by mentioning the direction, even if not explicit.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'move_metadata_denom' (which likely does the reverse). The description only mentions chain availability, which is context but not usage guidelines.

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

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

The description confirms readonly behavior consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds that the tool returns LP metadata, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with key information (list vs lookup, output purpose, chain support). Every sentence is necessary and well-placed.

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, the description adequately explains the return value (LP metadata for vip_provide_and_delegate). It covers chain context and dual functionality. Minor omission: it doesn't specify whether the result is a list or single object, but the context implies both depending on parameters.

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 description supplements schema parameter descriptions by noting that metadataQuote is for looking up a specific pair and that chain defaults to L1 with L2 examples. With 100% schema coverage, this adds contextual value.

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 lists DEX liquidity pool pairs or looks up a specific pair by quote token metadata, and explicitly ties the output to the vip_provide_and_delegate tool. This distinguishes it from siblings, none of which are DEX-pair-specific.

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 indicates when to use the tool (to obtain LP metadata for vip_provide_and_delegate) and specifies chain availability (Initia L1 and Minimove). It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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