minter_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It states 'Read-only, spends nothing', which is a critical behavioral trait. It also enumerates the exact checks performed, giving the agent a clear picture of what the tool does without side effects.

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 two sentences long, the first states the purpose and checks, the second adds the read-only trait and calling order. Every word is informative, with no repetition of schema or annotation data.

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 read-only status tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what is checked, that it's safe, and when to call it. It does not describe the return format, but the enumerated checks give a reasonable expectation of the output.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially 100% covered. The description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed. This aligns with the baseline of 4 for tools with no 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 checks minter status, with specific items (funding address, spendable balance, BSV Desktop running/signed in/network). It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like minter_fund, mint_token, and mint_activate_bsv21, which perform actions rather than status checks.

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 says 'Call this first', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not mention when-not to use it or explicitly compare with alternatives, but the sibling tools' names make their purposes obvious, and the instruction to call first implies it is a prerequisite.

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