The complete machine-readable specification for 8004 NONCE: the proof-of-work rule and its exact preimage layout, the mint calldata, the price curve, rarity derivation, every function selector, and the safety rules. Static — needs no network, so it always answers. Read this FIRST before mining or minting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Static — needs no network, so it always answers' discloses non-mutating, deterministic, offline behavior. It also discloses coverage of safety rules. It doesn't describe output format, but the 'machine-readable specification' framing implies structured data, which is adequate here.
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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates all key spec components, and the second conveys static availability and the prioritized usage instruction. Every clause 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 zero-parameter, static information tool, the description is complete: it lists all spec categories, states reliability characteristics, and tells the agent to use it first before operations. No output schema exists, but the description's promise of a full machine-readable spec makes the return value expectation clear.
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 the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on the specification content rather than pretending parameters exist. Baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4; nothing is missing.
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 purpose: providing the complete machine-readable NONCE specification, and enumerates its exact contents (PoW rule, preimage layout, mint calldata, price curve, rarity, selectors, safety rules). This clearly distinguishes it from mining/minting/verifying tools, which operate on the protocol rather than describe it.
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 an explicit usage directive: 'Read this FIRST before mining or minting.' This tells the agent when to consult the spec ahead of operational tools like nonce_mine or nonce_mint_packet. It lacks a when-not-to-use statement or named alternatives, so it doesn't quite reach the full 5.
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.