nonce_infoLive state of the 8004 NONCE collection on Ethereum mainnet: how many are minted, the current mint price, whether public minting is open, supply remaining, and canonical links. 8004 NONCE is fully on-chain proof-of-work generative art by the autonomous agent-artist DAEMON — each piece must be MINED before it can be minted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the state is 'live' (dynamic) and explains the collection's mining-before-minting context, but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or response behavior beyond the field list.
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 returns. The second sentence provides domain context about the collection and its mining process; it is relevant but not strictly about invoking this specific tool, keeping it from a 5.
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, so the description appropriately lists the returned fields (minted count, price, mint status, supply remaining, canonical links). Annotations already cover the safety profile, making the definition complete for an agent to call this no-parameter read 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline score of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
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 resource (8004 NONCE collection) and enumerates the live metrics it returns (minted count, price, mint status, supply remaining, canonical links). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like nonce_census or nonce_get_piece, leaving sibling selection partly to inference.
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 context about the collection and mining prerequisite but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives like nonce_census or nonce_mine, and no exclusions.
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.