nonce_fill_gap

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: it discloses that this is a real on-chain transaction, gives a concrete fee range (~0.001-0.01 STX), states the payload (1 micro-STX to the PoX burn address), and notes the wallet must be unlocked with fee auto-estimated. Cost, precondition and side effect are all covered.

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 critical warning ('LAST-RESORT', cost, use nonce_health first) is front-loaded and each paragraph earns its place. The closing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities' is unrelated promotional content that dilutes an otherwise tight 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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the failure mode it addresses, prerequisites (unlocked wallet), cost, and the recommended workflow. Nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'The specific nonce to fill'. The description adds only contextual framing (gaps are discovered via nonce_health) rather than new semantics such as how to derive the nonce value, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Fill a nonce gap by sending a minimal STX transfer') and explains the mempool mechanics that make the operation necessary. It is clearly distinguishable from nonce_health (diagnostic) and other transfer tools because it names the exact scenario — a missing nonce blocking higher nonces.

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 frames itself as a 'LAST-RESORT recovery action', warns that gaps usually self-resolve in seconds, and instructs the agent to confirm persistence via nonce_health first, then call once per missing nonce. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension rewards.

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