pm_get_min_seed_public

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

No annotations provided, but the description implies it is a read operation returning a numeric amount. It does not describe side effects or edge cases, but for a getter this is minimally acceptable.

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, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with action and resource, concise and clear.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple getter tool with no parameters and no output schema. It explains the value and distinguishes it from a related tool. Slightly lacking in what the agent should do with the result, but sufficient.

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?

No parameters exist in the schema, so parameter semantics are not needed. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable when schema coverage is 100% and there are zero parameters.

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 gets the minimum seed amount (USDB) for a non-private private market. It uses specific verb 'get' and resource 'min seed amount', and distinguishes from private-only markets by noting it's higher.

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 tells when to use it (for non-private private markets) and contrasts with private-only via 'higher than private-only'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools but the context is clear.

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