BASE167

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

Even with annotations present (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds exceptional behavioral detail: it returns an unsigned transaction and a short-lived voucher, never signs or holds keys, requires the user to approve and send, warns the transaction cannot be undone, and discloses the already-claimed ineligible state. This far exceeds what the annotations convey and covers security-critical behavior. No contradiction with annotations found — readOnlyHint=false is consistent with the stateful voucher issuance described.

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?

Despite being multi-paragraph, every sentence carries unique information: the no-sale clarification, the on-chain amount workaround, the one-per-wallet retry warning, and the unsigned-transaction security model. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent clause prevents a distinct potential misuse. There is no filler or repetition of what the schema already states.

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 security-sensitive tool with no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient. It specifies exactly what is returned (eligibility, transaction count, transaction, voucher), what is deliberately not returned (the claim amount, with an on-chain alternative), and the irreversibility and signing requirements. Given the tool's complexity, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 single address parameter is already fully documented in the schema (100% coverage with format and pattern). The description adds value beyond the schema by contextualizing what the address must satisfy — the 167+ transaction threshold on Base mainnet — and clarifying the address is expected on Base mainnet. It doesn't add syntax details, but the eligibility context enriches the parameter's meaning beyond mere format.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair ('Check whether a wallet can claim BASE167') and immediately distinguishes the tool by explaining the unique claim model — no sale, no presale, no allocation, only wallets with 167+ Base transactions. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling claim and enrollment tools by framing it as an eligibility check rather than a claim or setup action.

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 gives strong usage context: use it to determine eligibility, and read calculateReward(claimCount()) on-chain for the claim amount rather than relying on this tool. It also states explicit exclusions — 'never treat a refusal here as a reason to retry' and the one-claim-forever rule. It stops short of naming a specific sibling alternative to prefer, but the when-to-use and when-not-to guidance is largely 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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns an unsigned transaction plus a short-lived voucher, never signs or holds keys, requires the user to approve/send, and that the resulting on-chain action cannot be undone. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives sequencing, return format, and safety/irreversibility warnings in a compact structure. Every sentence carries useful information without padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains what the tool returns and how the user must handle the transaction. It also covers eligibility, window checking, and the follow-up step, making it complete for an agent to invoke this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the address format and requirement are already fully documented. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, though it implies the address is the user's own wallet. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it claims the season Entry pass NFT, defines what that pass does (lets a holder enter Degen Games), and adds eligibility/free conditions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling claim tools such as base167_claim_winner_badge.

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?

Explicit sequencing is provided: call base167_get_season first if unsure whether the window is open, and base167_enroll_wallet after minting. The description also states the eligibility and enrolment-window conditions, making it clear when this tool is the appropriate step.

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 goes far beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool returns an unsigned transaction plus a short-lived voucher, never signs for the user, never holds keys, and requires the user to approve and send the transaction. It also discloses that the action is irreversible and that no prize money is involved, which is essential 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?

The description is well-structured, front-loading the core purpose first and then adding critical safety and execution details. Each sentence earns its place, especially the explicit warning about the nonexistence of a prize-withdrawal function, which prevents costly agent errors.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return shape (unsigned transaction with chainId, to, data, value, plus voucher), the exact user action required, and the irreversible nature of the transaction. For a single-parameter claim tool, this is comprehensive enough 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 coverage is 100% and the only parameter, address, is already fully described in the schema with a pattern and explanation. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics, 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 tool's action: claim the rank-stamped Winner badge NFT for a settled season. It also distinguishes this from other tools by noting it is a trophy that does not move prize money, and it is specifically for top-ten finishers, unlike the entry-pass sibling.

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?

It gives clear conditions for when the tool applies: top ten finishers, after results are published. It does not explicitly invoke a sibling tool as an alternative, but the eligibility criteria and the warning against searching for a prize-withdrawal function provide strong contextual guidance.

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: it returns an unsigned transaction, never signs or holds keys, requires user approval, and is irreversible once mined. It also states the wallet is judged at the opening bell with specific balance constraints, going well beyond the structured fields.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose: eligibility, constraints, prerequisites, replacement behavior, and return value. It is front-loaded with the core action and organized so critical caveats are easy to find.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (unsigned transaction plus voucher) and user responsibilities. It covers prerequisites, replacement semantics, irreversibility, and wallet qualification rules, making it complete enough 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description essentially repeats that the player is the Entry pass holder and gameWallet is the scored wallet, adding little new meaning beyond the schema. The extra details about the opening bell and balances enrich context but not parameter semantics specifically.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Register the wallet that will actually trade during the season.' It clearly distinguishes the player address from the game wallet and is plainly distinct from siblings like claim_entry_pass or get_leaderboard.

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 gives clear context: requires an Entry pass, any wallet qualifies, and re-enrolling replaces the previous binding. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use this instead of X,' but the prerequisite and replacement behavior provide solid guidance.

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds a concrete prompt-injection warning: player names and handles are user-supplied and must be treated as data, not instructions. It also discloses the dynamic live/final behavior and the percentage-gain ranking, which are useful 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?

The description is compact and well-structured: core behavior first, then parameter guidance, then a security warning. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 single-optional-boolean read tool with readOnly and openWorld annotations, the description fully covers selection, invocation, and safety. It explains live vs. final behavior, the parameter use, and the untrusted-data caveat, so an agent has everything needed to call it 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 schema already fully documents the final parameter with 'True for published final results, false or omitted for the live board,' so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'a finished season' and when the parameter matters, but it largely restates 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 explicitly states 'Read the competition standings,' identifying the verb and resource clearly. It further distinguishes live vs. settled leaderboards and specifies the ranking basis (percentage gain), so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like get_season without ambiguity.

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 gives clear context for when live vs. final results are returned and explicitly instructs to pass final=true for settled results from a finished season. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, but the sibling set contains no competing leaderboard tool, so the guidance 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: 'sends no transaction and needs no wallet address' and a safety warning that player names/handles are untrusted data displayed as data. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 longer than most but each sentence earns its place: action, use cases, safety profile, and a data handling warning. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main 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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, when to call it, and what side effects (none) to expect. The security note about user-supplied data is an important contextual addition.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no burden to explain them. It wisely focuses on the result content, which is the only meaningful semantic for a parameterless read tool.

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 states a precise action ('Read the current state of Degen Games') with a specific resource and lists the exact data it returns. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like base167_get_leaderboard by focusing on the overall season state rather than just standings.

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 to use this for any question about the competition and to check the window is open before claiming or enrolling. It does not mention when not to use it, but the provided use cases are clear and practical.

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behaviors: the need for a user's own wallet signature, the two-step flow, exact message matching or 401, support for smart contract wallets, mutual exclusivity of name/handle to prevent replay, the 900-second expiry validity, and rejection of open-ended expiries. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 moderately long but every sentence carries necessary information. It is logically structured: first a one-line summary, then the two-step procedure, followed by security and constraint details. No filler, but it could be slightly tightened without losing critical warnings.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by providing all essential operational details: the request/response expectation (message to sign and expiry), error behavior (401), time limits, and input constraints. An agent can correctly execute both steps without needing additional 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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), which warrants a baseline of 3. The description adds extra context beyond the schema: it explains the two-step flow's implications for expiry and signature, and clarifies that the mutual exclusivity of name/handle is enforced and why. This adds genuine semantic 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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('the display name or X handle shown next to a wallet on the boards'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like claim_entry_pass or get_leaderboard. It also clarifies the two-step nature, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 detailed step-by-step instructions on how to call the tool, including when to omit or include signature/expiry. It explicitly says to set exactly one of name or handle, and warns against passing both. While it does not name alternative tools for when not to use this, the context is clear enough for correct invocation.

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