resetMmp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains conditional behavior (unfreeze vs. reset) and states that counters go to 0 regardless. It also provides a rate limit of 5 req/s. However, it does not mention any side effects or authorization requirements, which would improve transparency.

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 concise and well-structured. It starts with the main action, then explains behavior in two states, followed by a rate limit note and an agent hint. Every sentence adds value, and no redundant information is present.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior and usage context. However, it lacks explanation of the parameter and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether MMP must be enabled). It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The description only mentions that the tool requires the baseCoin parameter but does not explain what baseCoin represents. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should define the parameter. The agent must infer its meaning from the tool name and context, which is insufficient.

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 tool's action: 'Reset MMP freeze state and clear trading history counters.' It distinguishes between frozen and unfrozen states, and the agent hint specifies its use case for unfreezing or resetting counters. This differentiates it from siblings like setMmp and getMmpState.

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 agent hint explicitly says when to use this tool: to unfreeze an MMP-frozen account or reset counters. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (setMmp, getMmpState) implies the distinction. Clear but could be more explicit.

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