radiant_get_most_profitable_dmint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly conveys that this is a read-only retrieval and adds useful behavioral context by specifying the ordering metric (reward/difficulty ratio). However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or error scenarios, making it strong but not fully comprehensive.

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 immediately specifies the sorting criterion. There is no wasted verbiage or repetition of schema information.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It conveys the core behavior and the sort key. Minor gaps like not defining 'dMint contracts' are acceptable given the domain context and sibling tool names. The schema covers the parameter, so an agent can call it correctly with the given information.

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, 'limit', has a complete description in the schema ('Number of contracts to return'), so the schema covers 100% of parameter semantics. The description does not add any additional meaning about how limit interacts with the sorting, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('dMint contracts'), and the distinguishing characteristic (sorted by estimated profitability via reward/difficulty ratio). This differentiates it from siblings like radiant_get_dmint_contracts (generic listing) and radiant_get_dmint_by_algorithm (algorithm-filtered) without needing to open 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 the use case (obtain the most profitable contracts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over radiant_get_dmint_contracts or other dmint-related tools. It lacks exclusionary language or named alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the selection based solely on the sorting phrase.

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