radiant_get_dmint_by_algorithm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not state return format, pagination, authorization needs, error behavior, or any side effects. For a filter tool without annotations, this leaves too much unspoken.

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 sentence that states the action, object, and filter in six words. It is completely free of filler and front-loads the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description states the core purpose and the schema covers the parameter. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details (e.g., whether results are limited, order, or what a returned contract contains), so it is adequate but not fully complete for an agent with no prior context.

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 fully documents the algorithm parameter with an explicit mapping (0=SHA256D, 1=BLAKE3, etc.), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description's 'mining algorithm' phrase adds no new information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('dMint contracts'), and a distinct filtering criterion ('by mining algorithm'). This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like radiant_get_dmint_contracts (likely unfiltered) and radiant_get_dmint_contract (singular), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 when to use the tool—when dMint contracts need to be filtered by mining algorithm—but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over alternatives like radiant_get_dmint_contracts or radiant_get_most_profitable_dmint. There is no when-not guidance or direct comparison, leaving selection partially to inference.

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