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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses key traits: the tool simulates and prepares, returns an unsigned transaction, and requires the caller to sign and send it. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or failure modes, but the action boundary is clear.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter guidance follows naturally.

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?

The description conveys the core workflow and return form (unsigned transaction) despite no output schema. However, it omits any explanation of the required wallet parameter, leaving a notable gap for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It fully explains typeId (omit for random, pass 0–8), but it never mentions the required wallet parameter or what value is expected, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Prepare'), resource ('Operative mint'), and output form ('unsigned transaction you sign and send yourself'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mint_info, which presumably reports mint information rather than preparing a transaction.

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?

Explains how to use the typeId parameter (omit for random, pass 0–8 to pick), which implies usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mint_info or prepare_bet, nor does it list exclusions or prerequisites.

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