Retrieve details for a specific dMint contract, including difficulty, reward, algorithm, and supply.
Get details for a specific dMint contract (difficulty, reward, algorithm, supply)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | Contract reference (72 hex chars) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' makes the read-only nature clear and the parenthetical lists likely response fields, but it does not describe error behavior, what happens for an unknown contract, or any other side effects. This is adequate for a simple fetch but not rich.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a compact parenthetical of key return fields. There is no filler or redundant information; every word earns its place.
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 the tool's low complexity, one clearly documented parameter, and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the return content and basic purpose. It could mention the need for a valid existing contract ref or note the sibling listing tool, but it is otherwise complete for straightforward usage.
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 only parameter, 'ref', is fully described in the schema as 'Contract reference (72 hex chars)', so schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 details') and names the exact resource ('a specific dMint contract'), then enumerates the returned fields: difficulty, reward, algorithm, supply. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like radiant_get_dmint_contracts, radiant_get_dmint_by_algorithm, and radiant_get_most_profitable_dmint.
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 phrase 'a specific dMint contract' implies the tool is for fetching one contract by reference, as opposed to the plural listing or algorithm-based tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving usage mostly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.