PairMine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that results are 'read from chain' (i.e. a read-only, authoritative check) and names the four gates plus the 10-per-address cap. It does not cover invalid/non-BSC address handling, failure modes, or freshness/latency of the on-chain read.

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, front-loaded with verb and resource, followed by the gate enumeration. Dense but every clause names a distinct check, so nothing reads as filler; the colon-separated list is scannable.

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 one-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the enumeration of gates implicitly tells the agent what comes back, which is the main thing needed. However, no output shape, ordering, or failure behavior is described, leaving the agent to discover the result structure at call time.

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 0% and the schema only types 'address' as a string, so the description's addition of 'BSC address' supplies useful meaning (which chain the address must belong to) beyond the schema. It stops short of format details (checksum, hex length) or what happens when the address has no on-chain history.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a BSC address') and enumerates exactly what is verified: AgentGate.isEligible, trial-miner claimed, Genesis-list qualification, and Genesis mints used/remaining. That is far more specific than a sibling like genesis_status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites (e.g. 'call before minting'), and no mention of alternatives such as genesis_status or tier_price. An agent can infer it is a pre-mint eligibility gate, but the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does useful work: it establishes this is a read ('read from PairCore on BSC'), identifies the authoritative on-chain source, and specifies exactly what state is reflected rather than claiming cached or computed values. It omits auth requirements, freshness/latency, and failure behavior if BSC is unreachable, which are the remaining gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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, front-loaded with what the tool is and where the data comes from, followed by a compact enumeration of return fields. Every item in the list corresponds to a distinct piece of state an agent would need; nothing reads as filler.

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, so the description must explain return values, and it does so exhaustively for this tool's scope: sale counts against the fixed 888 supply, window and sale open flags, public sale progress, and LP creation status. For a zero-parameter read of a well-defined on-chain round, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to read the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema coverage signal of 100% is trivially satisfied by an empty object.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific resource and scope: 'Live status of the PairMine Genesis round' plus the data source 'read from PairCore on BSC'. It then enumerates the concrete facts returned (miners sold/remaining out of 888, window and sale open state, progress, LP creation), which lets an agent distinguish it from static siblings like project_info or tier_price. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as the alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no reference to the sibling tools (check_eligibility, tier_price, mint_instructions) that an agent must choose between. The usage context is inferable — this is the pre-mint status check — but the description leaves that inference to the agent.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not say whether calling this performs a mint (a side-effecting operation) or merely returns documentation. It mentions "caps and safety rules" as topics but discloses nothing about prerequisites, side effects, or whether the content is authoritative/current beyond a bare URL.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core subject and embeds the canonical source URL, with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical sourcing makes it read as a pointer rather than a self-contained definition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, unannotated tool, the description must establish that it is a read-only documentation fetch and what the response contains; it does neither. It also leaves the mint-versus-inform ambiguity unresolved, which is the single most important thing an agent needs to know here.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain and the baseline is a 4. However, because the tool returns no structured output and has no parameters, the description's lack of any statement about the shape or length of what comes back is a gap.

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 says the tool covers "How an agent mints PairMine miners" and lists the topics it covers (Genesis path, public path, trial miner, caps, safety rules), which signals that it returns guidance. But it is a noun-phrase content summary with no verb stating what the call actually does—return instructions, or perform a mint—so an agent cannot tell the tool's action from its subject matter.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (check_eligibility, genesis_status, tier_price), even though those clearly form a decision sequence with this one. The agent must infer on its own when to call this versus checking eligibility or status first.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'static, published data' usefully implies read-only and non-live content, which is the one real behavioral clue. Nothing is said about the shape, size, or freshness of the returned directory, or whether it can fail.

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?

Extremely short with no wasted words, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of action. Brevity here comes at the cost of information rather than from tight editing.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of truth, and it never says what the directory returns or how the agent should use it. The one clue about static published data is insufficient to call the tool confidently.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming it is a no-argument call, which 'static, published data' loosely supports. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool 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 fragment names the resource ('PairMine project and contract directory') but supplies no verb, so the agent must infer that this is a lookup/read tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like check_eligibility or tier_price only by the noun 'directory', not by any stated 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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus the four sibling tools. The agent gets no signal about whether this is a discovery/reference step preceding other calls or a standalone lookup.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral facts: zero-argument default returns the current tier and exact price, tier is bounded to 1–40, and quote_qty maps to the contract's quote() ladder walk. It says nothing about error behavior for out-of-range tiers, whether values are cached/stale, or what units the price is denominated in.

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, zero filler, with the default (no-argument) behavior front-loaded ahead of the optional overrides. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from the bare schema.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, ranges, and parameter semantics adequately. What is missing is minor but real: price denomination/format and behavior on invalid input, which the schema (0% coverage) and absent output schema cannot supply.

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 0%, so the description must supply all parameter meaning, and it largely does: tier's valid range (1 to 40), quote_qty's precise semantics (contract quote() total that walks the ladder), and the default behavior when both are omitted. The remaining ambiguity is whether passing both returns two values or one combined result; "and/or" hints at combination but doesn't define the output.

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?

"Public-sale tier pricing from PairCore" names the resource (tier pricing) and the source, and the two sentences spell out the two modes: current tier with no args, or a specific tier/quote total. A verb is only implied ("pricing"), and it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like genesis_status or mint_instructions, but the resource is specific enough to disambiguate.

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 clearly states which argument combination produces which result (no args = current tier, tier = that tier's price, quote_qty = quote() total), which is genuinely useful routing. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as check_eligibility or mint_instructions, and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., sale not started, out-of-range tier).

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