magicblock requestRandomness

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it builds an unsigned transaction (not executing it), references the VRF oracle address, and mentions builder fee. This provides useful context beyond the annotations, such as the transaction-building nature and oracle queue defaults.

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 focused paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then covers workflow, queue defaults, and fee. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values are not needed), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, how to use it with SAP tools, key parameters, and the builder fee. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

All 7 parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that 'callerSeed' is committed before randomness production, and that 'ephemeral=true' switches to the ER queue. This context goes beyond the schema's 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 requests provably fair on-chain randomness from the MagicBlock VRF oracle, building an unsigned transaction. It uses a specific verb ('request') and resource ('randomness'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like magicblock_getRandomnessResult by focusing on the request action.

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 use sap_preview_transaction, sap_sign_transaction, and sap_submit_signed_transaction, and warns against creating local signing scripts. It also mentions the oracle queue default and ephemeral option. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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