jingswap_get_cycle_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the returned state fields and phase values, which is useful, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, authentication needs, data freshness, or error cases.

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 main purpose and return fields are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence gives usage context. The trailing earning_opportunities tip is somewhat tangential to invoking this tool but remains short and does not obscure the core definition.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description lists the important returned fields and the auction phases. It leaves some response-shape details implicit, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool provides and how to call it.

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?

There is one optional market parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameter and its default. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get the current Jingswap auction cycle state. It enumerates the exact state fields returned (phase, blocks elapsed, cycle totals, minimum deposit requirements), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like jingswap_get_cycles_history or jingswap_get_user_deposit.

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?

It gives a broad usage cue: "Use this to understand where the auction currently stands." However, it does not explain when to prefer this over related jingswap tools such as get_user_deposit, get_depositors, or get_settlement, nor does it give exclusions or preconditions.

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