legion_inscribe_reveal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the pre-signing validation (commit output checked against derived script), the consequence of refusal (stranded sats), and the unlocked managed wallet requirement. It stops short of detailing feeRate behavior or failure/return specifics beyond the id/link, so not a 5.

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 steps and warnings are front-loaded and each sentence carries information. The trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' line is promotional filler unrelated to the task, slightly diluting an otherwise tight description.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, wallet state, validation, and the return (inscription id and link for legion_propose_story). Minor gaps like feeRate default handling and edge-case errors keep it from a 5, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that the reveal script is derived from title, body, and parentInscriptionId and that these must match the commit exactly. This provides rationale the schema does not, though commitTxid and revealAmount rely on the schema alone.

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 (complete) and resource (news inscription reveal) and explicitly frames it as STEP 2 of a two-step flow, distinguishing it from the commit counterpart in legion_inscribe_story. The agent knows exactly what this does without opening the 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?

Explicitly says to call it after the commit has confirmed, to reuse the SAME title/body/parentInscriptionId, and why a mismatch is refused before signing. It also contrasts with the commit step regarding mainnet confirmation, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke versus hold back.

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