magicblock getRandomnessResult

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it reads on-chain, returns status/bytes/metadata, and costs $0.01. This provides extra context beyond annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, return values, cost. Front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, mechanism, output, and cost. It could mention when random bytes may not be available (though 'if available' covers this). Annotations and output schema fill remaining gaps.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds relational context by specifying that requestKey is from magicblock_requestRandomness, linking the tools together.

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 if a VRF request is fulfilled by reading the RandomnessRequest account on-chain. It specifies what is returned (fulfilled status, random bytes, metadata) and includes cost. This distinguishes it from the sibling magicblock_requestRandomness tool.

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 implies use after magicblock_requestRandomness by referencing 'requestKey from magicblock_requestRandomness'. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the sibling context provides clear distinction.

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