ecash_get_puzzle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses what is returned (puzzle poem, batch, era, reward), but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or discuss any side effects, authentication, or rate limits. The 'Get' verb implies safety, but additional behavioral context is missing.

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, focused sentence that states the action, the target resource, and the return payload. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

As a parameterless read operation, the description is quite complete: it tells what the tool does and what it returns. It does not mention edge cases like the absence of an active puzzle, but for a simple getter this is acceptable.

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 input schema has no properties, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adequately covers the tool's interface.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'the current active puzzle for mining ECASH,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ecash_get_job and ecash_mining_status. It also specifies the return contents, which reinforces the purpose.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving the mining puzzle, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like ecash_get_job or ecash_mining_status. There are no exclusions or comparisons, so it relies on implied usage.

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