cpu_quote_lot_return

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that the call spends nothing, lists every output dimension, and explains the fee's role as a ceiling that cpu_return_lot may refuse to exceed. It also exposes the timing precondition, that the quote must be consumed immediately before the return, which is critical behavioral context.

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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by preconditions, route requirements, output summary, and downstream usage in a logical order. Every sentence contributes distinct information, and the length is justified by the tool's relationship to cpu_return_lot and the need to define the fee ceiling behavior.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is nearly self-sufficient: it covers prerequisites, supported lot states, the exact required chain format, all returned information, and how to feed the result into cpu_return_lot. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly is left to guesswork.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both lotId and chain, including the required route structure and the recommendation to scout waypoints with cpu_next_hops. The description restates the chain format and lot ownership but adds no materially new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: Preview sending one of your lots home — the whole unsold remainder, from its hub to a cell you own — without spending anything. It also names the paying counterpart cpu_return_lot, so the tool is immediately distinguishable as a quote rather than an execution.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: run this immediately before cpu_return_lot and pass the returned wei field back unchanged. It also states the applicable lot states (OPEN and EVICTED), the required session, and the exact required chain shape, leaving no ambiguity about how and when to invoke it.

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