mint_verify

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

Discloses that verification is free and ungated, which is useful. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does not fully disclose other behaviors like idempotency or side effects. For a read-like tool, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about free usage is a concise addition. Every sentence contributes meaningfully.

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?

Given the tool has 4 optional parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the two primary use cases. It could mention prerequisites (e.g., actor registration) but overall is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds value by grouping parameters into two use cases (actor reputation vs. attestation), which clarifies valid parameter combinations beyond the schema's anyOf structure.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies either an actor's reputation or an attestation's on-chain anchoring, using specific resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like mint_attest (creates attestations) and mint_register (registers actors). Explanation of free usage adds clarity.

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?

Implicitly guides use for verification tasks, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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