Verify nonce

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently discloses that no transaction is sent, that it reads on-chain workFor and requiredBits values, and that the check is performed locally. It does not specify the exact return value shape, which is a minor gap.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the key differentiator ('WITHOUT sending a transaction') before explaining the mechanism. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The core algorithm is explained, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, success object, or error behavior). Given no annotations and no output schema, an agent must infer the return contract, leaving a meaningful completeness gap.

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 already covers both parameters fully, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining how each parameter is used: miner feeds workFor(miner, nonce) and requiredBits(miner), and nonce is the value being checked. This connects the fields to the verification logic beyond schema-level validation.

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?

States a specific verb ('verify'), a clear resource ('mined nonce'), and the exact verification approach: reading workFor, counting leading zero bits, and comparing to requiredBits. The phrase 'WITHOUT sending a transaction' also distinguishes it from on-chain alternatives.

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 makes the usage context clear: this is a local, transaction-free verification, which implies it should be used when the agent wants to check a nonce without incurring gas or chain state changes. It does not name an explicit sibling alternative or give a when-not-to-use condition, but it is reasonably inferable.

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