souldinals_reveal_soul

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explains that the reveal tx spends both the commit output and the parent inscription UTXO, returns the parent to the caller's address, and creates a child inscription. It doesn't discuss fee selection defaults, failure/retry behavior, or irreversibility of the broadcast, which keeps it short of 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?

Well front-loaded: purpose, sequencing, inputs, and return value each get one compact statement. The closing 'Tip' about earning_opportunities is tangential sales copy rather than tool guidance, which costs a point.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by stating the return value shape (inscriptionId as {revealTxid}i0). Combined with the two-step workflow and the UTXO-spending behavior, an agent has what it needs, though fee handling and error cases are left to the schema alone.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema, including the note that values come from the commit step. The description repeats that these four values come 'from the commit step response' but adds no extra semantics, and the optional feeRate parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 up front ('Complete a soul inscription - STEP 2: Broadcast reveal transaction') and labels itself as the second half of a two-call flow, making it unambiguously distinct from the commit-phase sibling souldinals_inscribe_soul.

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 states the precondition ('Call this AFTER the commit transaction from souldinals_inscribe_soul has confirmed') and names the alternative step, so an agent knows both when to use it and what must happen first. It even redirects to earning_opportunities for a follow-on task.

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