Register OPNS Domain

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is covered. The description adds the return shape ({ txid, inscriptionId, domain }) but does not disclose further behavioral details like transaction costs or side effects. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 concise and well-structured with an Args list and Returns line. It is front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Quick' modifier and repetition of schema defaults are minor wastes, but the overall length is appropriate for a three-parameter tool.

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 simple registration tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance against siblings and contains the feePerByte default error, which prevents it from being fully complete.

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 input schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions and constraints, so baseline is 3. However, the description contains an incorrect default for feePerByte (0.2 vs. 0.15 in the schema), which actively contradicts the schema and could mislead the agent. This reduces the score below baseline.

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 states 'Quick registration of an OPNS domain', which uses a specific verb ('registration') and resource ('OPNS domain'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ordnet_domain_register_sns and generic ordnet_domain_register.

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 usage by naming 'OPNS domain', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., SNS registration). There is no exclusion or mention of other domain types, so guidance remains implicit.

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