magicblock requestRandomness

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (write) and not idempotent. The description adds that it builds an unsigned transaction requiring signing and submission, and mentions a cost of $0.05. No contradiction with annotations. Provides useful behavioral 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?

The description is very concise: four sentences, no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently covers purpose, process, options, and cost.

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 7 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core process, signing requirement, oracle queue options, and cost. It does not elaborate on error cases or edge cases, but is sufficient for an agent to understand how to use the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the ephemeral parameter's effect (use ER queue) and the oracle queue defaults. This provides valuable context beyond the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Request provably fair on-chain randomness from the MagicBlock VRF oracle.' It specifies the verb 'request' and the resource 'randomness', distinguishing it from sibling tools like magicblock_getRandomnessResult.

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 explains that the tool builds an unsigned transaction which the caller must sign and submit, and mentions the need to use sap_sign_transaction. It also provides guidance on when to set ephemeral=true. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, 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.