Mint Sepolia play-money

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

Annotations show non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds key behaviors: mints 10,000 free tokens, sends to signing wallet, tokens are valueless playground tokens. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with action and details, no unnecessary words. Efficient.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and parameter. No gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with enum, so the schema already documents the parameter. Description echoes the enum values without adding new semantics beyond 'fpUSD or fpETH'.

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?

Clearly states verb 'Mint', resource '10,000 fpUSD or fpETH', destination 'signing wallet on Sepolia', and notes they are valueless playground tokens. Distinguishes from sibling tools as the only faucet.

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?

Explicitly says 'safe way for agents to get funds to experiment with', providing context for when to use. No explicit alternatives or exclusions listed, but the use case is clear.

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