cpu_mint_cell

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: payment in native ETH (not $CPU), minting to connected wallet, on-chain submission with confirmation wait, and need for sufficient balance. It doesn't describe the return value after confirmation, which is a minor gap.

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, with each sentence serving a purpose: purpose, cost preview, payment method, balance check, and secondary market alternative. No 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers usage, prerequisites, and alternatives thoroughly. It misses the return value after the on-chain wait, which would be useful, but overall it is quite complete for a single-parameter mint tool.

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 for the single 'quantity' parameter, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by relating quantity to the mint price and balance check, giving context beyond the schema's basic definition.

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 function: 'Mint new land cells on the primary market, straight from the collection’s OpenSea SeaDrop public drop'. It uses a specific verb 'mint' and resource 'land cells', and distinguishes itself from related tools like cpu_quote_mint and secondary market operations.

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 explicit when-to-use and alternatives: preview cost with cpu_quote_mint, check ETH balance with cpu_get_balance, and for secondary market use OpenSea listings. It also states prerequisites like having enough ETH for price × quantity plus gas.

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