kaspa_network

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

The description notes the tool is paid with a specific cost, which is important behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention other traits like rate limits, idempotency, or data freshness, and no annotations are provided to fill gaps.

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 first states the purpose and outputs, the second adds pricing context. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values. It could mention data frequency or pagination, but it's fairly complete for a simple status endpoint.

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?

With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds value by listing the returned metrics, which is sufficient since no input parameters exist.

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 tool retrieves Kaspa mainnet status with specific fields (DAA score, block count, difficulty, node sync state), distinguishing it from sibling tools like kaspa_balance or kaspa_fee_estimate.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the tool's purpose is clear enough to infer general usage. No alternatives are mentioned despite sibling tools existing.

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