mint_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the funding requirement and fast registration, but fails to disclose that the tool broadcasts a transaction, spends real satoshis, or that dryRun defaults to true—critical information for a minting operation that affects real funds.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, outcome, and prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the action and includes no filler or redundant details.

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 covers the core purpose, prerequisite, and post-mint behavior, which is adequate for a moderately complex tool with a rich schema. It omits the dryRun/execution semantics, but these are documented in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 all five parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, meeting the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Mint one token into the wallet') and the outcome ('appears in Assets within seconds'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like minter_status, minter_fund, and mint_activate_bsv21 by focusing on the minting action rather than status checks, funding, or protocol activation.

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 explicitly instructs to 'check minter_status first' as a prerequisite, providing clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to minter_fund or mint_activate_bsv21, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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