inference_register_provider

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explains the signing flow (wallet signs registration message proving ownership), the server-side POST, and the full verification chain (signature recovers to payoutAddress, endpoint must be reachable AND actually serving inference, model ids must be real/commercial HF repos). It omits failure behavior and whether re-registering an existing endpoint is idempotent or an error.

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 core mechanism is front-loaded in the first two sentences and the wallet requirement is stated separately at the end. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is mildly promotional but short and plausibly useful cross-selling context.

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 9-parameter, 4-required mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, ownership proof, and validation gates thoroughly. The remaining gap is the return value — it never says what the agent gets back (provider id, listing URL, tx hash) — which matters more here because no output schema exists.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the two highest-impact semantics — acceptedToken defaults to sBTC and sets the unit of pricePerRequest — but leaves gateway, payoutAddress, apiKey, and allowUnsafeGateway entirely to the schema, adding little beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb (register/list a model endpoint) on a named resource (AIBTC Inference Marketplace), plus the economic effect (flat price per request you set, paid in sBTC or USDCx). An agent can distinguish this from inference_list_providers (read), inference_update_provider (mutate), and inference_check_provider (verify) without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear preconditions: an unlocked wallet on the gateway's network, and a pointer to earning_opportunities for related discovery. However, it never explicitly routes the agent away from inference_update_provider (for changing an existing listing) or tells it to check inference_list_providers first to avoid duplicate registration.

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