prepare_sponsored_mint

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses roles (user signs, sponsor pays gas+1 SUI fee) and that it prepares an unsigned transaction. However, it omits side effects, prerequisites (e.g., configured sponsor), and lifecycle (next step: submit).

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?

Single sentence of 26 words, front-loaded with the action 'Prepare an unsigned Sui transaction'. No redundant or unnecessary information. Each word contributes meaning.

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?

With no output schema and two params, the description lacks context on the return value (unsigned transaction blob) and the relationship to sibling tools like 'submit_sponsored_mint'. It hints at sponsorship but misses the overall workflow.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by specifying that the user signs and receives the mint, complementing the schema. No enums or nested objects. Baseline 3 is exceeded.

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 'Prepare an unsigned Sui transaction' with specific roles: user signs as sender/recipient and sponsor pays gas plus fee. It distinguishes from sibling 'prepare_mint' by specifying the sponsorship arrangement.

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 usage for sponsored mints but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'prepare_mint' or 'submit_sponsored_mint'. No when-not-to-use or exclusions are provided.

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