radiant_get_dmint_contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation ('List') and adds domain context (PoW distribution), but it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what 'active' means, or whether the response is paginated or includes a list of all contracts. It adds some context but lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then adds clarifying context. No wasted words and it is appropriately brief for a simple list operation.

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 tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain what the response contains (e.g., list of contract refs, fields, or how 'active' is determined). It also does not differentiate from sibling tools, which could cause an agent to choose the wrong tool. For a tool that returns a list, more context on return format and selection criteria would be needed.

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 schema description covers the single 'format' parameter 100% (enum simple/extended with default). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and no extra value is added.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'active dMint contracts', and adds useful context by explaining dMint as 'decentralized mining' and 'PoW distribution'. This distinguishes it from general token tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling radiant_get_dmint_contract (singular) or radiant_get_dmint_by_algorithm, leaving the list-vs-single distinction implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the other dMint-related siblings. There is no mention of alternative tools, selection criteria, or when not to use it. The only hint is the word 'List' implying a collection, but the description never states 'use this to get all contracts' or 'use get_dmint_contract for a specific one'.

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