Live distribution of minted 8004 NONCE pieces across difficulty bands, read from the chain. Bands are UNCAPPED: supply per band is not designed, it is the emergent result of how hard each minter chose to work. Returns raw counts only — no interpretation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum tokens to sample from the start of the collection. Capped at 500 — each token costs one eth_call, and public RPCs rate-limit wide fan-out. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the data is live, read from the chain, and limited to raw counts with no interpretation. It also clarifies that band supplies are uncapped and emergent, which prevents a common misinterpretation. It does not detail output shape or pagination, but the parameter schema covers the sampling limit and cost rationale.
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?
Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the tool's core function, an important semantic caveat about band supplies, and a clear statement of what the response contains. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no 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?
For a single-parameter, read-only census tool, the description is reasonably complete even without an output schema. It tells the agent what the tool returns (raw counts across difficulty bands) and what it does not do (interpretation). Slightly more detail about the exact response shape would strengthen completeness, but the description covers the essential usage context.
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% for the single `limit` parameter, including default, min/max, and rationale about eth_call costs and RPC rate limits. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 identifies the tool's function: reporting the live distribution of minted 8004 NONCE pieces across difficulty bands. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing that it returns aggregate raw counts, not piece-level data or interpretation, and by noting this is a chain-read census rather than a mining/minting operation.
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 when to use the tool: when you need the current difficulty-band distribution and raw counts, not analysis. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, such as 'use nonce_get_piece for individual pieces' or 'use nonce_spec for band definitions.' The guidance is left largely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The koine_ and nonce_ prefixes cleanly separate two distinct collection workflows, and within each prefix every tool addresses a unique action or resource. Even the two verify tools are easily distinguished by collection prefix and their exact verification behavior.
Tool names share a clear collection-prefix snake_case scheme, making grouping and selection predictable. However, not every name follows the same verb_noun form—info, census, spec, listings, and provenance are noun-style while mine, get, list, and verify are verb-style—so the pattern is consistent but not perfectly uniform.
13 tools is well-scoped for a server covering two distinct on-chain art collections with read, discovery, verification, and minting workflows. Each tool maps to a real operation, with no obvious filler or redundant entries.
The NONCE half covers the full lifecycle well: spec, mine, mint_packet, verify, info, census, and get_piece. The KOINE half covers discovery, provenance, listings, and verification, but the only acquisition route is external Seaport fulfillment, with no KOINE purchase or fulfillment packet equivalent to nonce_mint_packet—a minor but real gap.