ecash_mining_status

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

This is a read-only 'Get' operation, but the description doesn't explicitly state that it has no side effects or require no permissions. With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure; while the verb implies a safe read, it could be more explicit about being non-mutating and about data freshness.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, followed by a comma-separated list of the statistics included. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers all necessary information: what the tool does and what it returns. The enumerated list provides sufficient detail for an agent to decide if this tool matches the user's intent.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is complete and the description doesn't need to elaborate on parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'ECASH mining statistics' and enumerates concrete data points (solved puzzles, batch, era, next reward, supply), distinguishing it from sibling tools like balance checks or puzzle retrieval.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—whenever current mining statistics are needed. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the scope is well-defined and distinct from sibling tools.

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