refinore-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions deployment of tokens but fails to clarify critical aspects: whether this is a write operation (likely, given 'Start'), potential costs or irreversible actions, rate limits, authentication needs beyond the wallet address, or what happens after starting (e.g., session duration, error handling). The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second lists configurable parameters. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points or clearer grouping), but it remains efficient with zero waste.

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 complexity of a mining tool (likely involving financial transactions and session management), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., costs, reversibility), usage guidelines, and details on what the tool returns (e.g., session ID, confirmation). For a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero structured coverage, this description does not provide enough context for safe and effective use.

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 all six parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the parameters ('Configure amount, number of squares, token, risk tolerance, and tile selection strategy') but provides no additional meaning, syntax, or usage context. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Start a new ORE mining session'), the target resource ('on refinORE'), and the deployment details ('Deploys SOL/USDC/ORE across squares on the mining grid'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'start_strategy' or 'stop_mining' by focusing on initiating a mining operation rather than strategy management or session termination.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_strategy' or 'create_strategy', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a funded wallet) or exclusions. It lists configuration parameters but offers no context for choosing between them or when mining is appropriate.

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