mint_activate_bsv21

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: 'Polls for the fee address, then pays it 2000 sats,' revealing both the fee payment and the external action. It could mention irreversibility, but the dryRun parameter in the schema partially covers that.

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 three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, clarifying when it is needed, and describing the process. No waste or repetition.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the condition for use, and the expected behavior. It is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both tokenId and dryRun, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already provides, meriting the baseline score.

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 states 'Activate a BSV-21 token id with GorillaPool' – a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it is 'only needed for external discovery,' clarifying it is not for minting or funding.

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 gives clear context: 'Only needed for external discovery' and 'the wallet already shows the token without this,' indicating when not to use. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the purpose and siblings make the distinction obvious.

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