cpu_reveal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses costs (first reveal free, later reveals burn CPU), payment mechanics (ETH sent with tx plus a $CPU burn approval), conditions for a second reveal (all deposits depleted), network-dependent settlement behavior, and exact failure handling for insufficient $CPU. This is unusually transparent for a mutation tool.

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?

Despite its length, the description is front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, and each sentence adds a distinct operational fact: cost, payment, second-reveal condition, randomness mode lookup, self-service settlement, and recovery path. No sentence is redundant or decorative.

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 complex, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the prerequisites, cost model, payment behavior, network-mode variance, return behavior on self-service networks, pending-reveal handling, and failure recovery. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly without opening other docs.

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 single parameter tokenId is already fully documented in the schema as the tokenId of a cell you own. The description does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond that, so it meets the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Reveal the deposits of a cell you own') and immediately scopes the operation as an on-chain Cell transaction requesting randomness. It also embeds the key prerequisite (call cpu_authenticate first), which distinguishes the tool from siblings like cpu_fulfill_reveal or cpu_get_cell.

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, including the required prerequisite (cpu_authenticate), where to check randomness mode (cpu_get_game_config), how to handle a pending reveal, and a precise recovery path for insufficient $CPU (cpu_quote_swap, then cpu_swap, then retry cpu_reveal). It leaves almost no routing ambiguity.

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