refinore-mcp

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'Get'), it returns specific mining round metrics, and it explicitly states 'This is a public endpoint (no auth required)', which is crucial information about authentication requirements that isn't available elsewhere.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and enumerates returned data points, the second provides critical behavioral context about authentication. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly explains what information is returned and the authentication context. The only minor gap is that it doesn't specify the format or structure of the returned data, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what information the tool provides about the current mining round.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('current mining round info'), then enumerates the exact data points returned (round number, time remaining, total deployed, motherlode, expected value). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mining_history or get_mining_session by focusing on current round status rather than historical data or active sessions.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool ('Get the current mining round info') and explicitly states it's a public endpoint with no auth required. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related information, such as get_mining_history for past data or get_mining_session for active session details.

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