Cost of production

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail: the return fields, the meaning of a reference-machine change indicating the efficiency frontier moved, and the effect of a custom electricity rate. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: a crisp definition, the output fields, an optional-input note, concrete use cases, and sibling routing. The definition 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates the return values (CoP in USD, spot, gross margin, above/below water, reference machine and tariff, 30-day trend). It also covers usage context, parameter semantics via schema, and alternative tools, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents coin_id and electricity_cost_usd_kwh. The description adds interpretive context by explaining that CoP is computed on the most efficient hardware and that a custom electricity rate is accepted, but it intentionally leaves parameter-level details to the schema.

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 verb and resource: it computes the all-in electricity cost of mining one unit of a Proof of Work coin on the most efficient tracked hardware, compared to spot price. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the object of interest (a coin's production cost) and explicitly pointing to get_hardware_benchmarks and calculate_solo_mining_odds as different tools.

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 gives explicit use cases ('is mining X profitable', 'what does it cost to produce one Monero', 'are miners underwater', 'break-even electricity price'). It also gives explicit exclusions and alternatives: use get_hardware_benchmarks for a specific rig and calculate_solo_mining_odds for block-finding probability.

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