get_developer_rewards

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially carries the burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose permissions, data freshness, or whether results are cumulative. It is adequate but not detailed.

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 redundant words. Each 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 simple read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the action and input, though it could optionally mention the output format.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds a slight qualifier ('Developer reward') but essentially repeats the schema's parameter description. No additional 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 retrieves 'indexed developer reward totals for a recipient key', specifying the verb ('Get'), resource ('developer reward totals'), and scope ('indexed', 'for a recipient key'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_balance and get_token_balances by focusing on developer rewards.

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., get_balance, get_state). Sibling tools include many similar getters, but the description does not provide context or exclusions.

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