w3_can_filecoin_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'advanced use' entails. The description is too vague to provide meaningful operational context beyond the basic action.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the '(advanced use)' qualifier could be more integrated or explained, slightly reducing clarity without adding waste.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects, usage context, and return values. Without annotations or output schema, more guidance would be helpful, but it's not entirely incomplete for its complexity level.

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%, with the parameter 'pieceCid' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Gets') and resource ('Filecoin deal information for a given Piece CID'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like w3_can_blob_ls or w3_can_store_ls by focusing on Filecoin-specific data retrieval rather than general listing operations. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from other 'info' tools like w3_space_info, which might have similar patterns.

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?

The description provides minimal guidance with the phrase '(advanced use)', which implies this tool is for specialized scenarios but doesn't specify when to use it versus alternatives. There's no explicit mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use cases, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving the agent with little context for selection.

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