mint_cell

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the mint is on-chain, waits for confirmation, and requires native ETH. It does not describe return values, but for a simple mint tool with no output schema, this is acceptable.

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 well-structured, starting with purpose, then conditions, then explicit warnings. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed slightly without losing clarity.

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 one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and cross-references to related tools. It is fully adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds that quantity is a positive integer string (already in schema pattern) and mentions default '1' (also in schema). Provides no additional semantic value beyond what's in the input 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 clearly states the action (mint), resource (land cells), and source (primary market via OpenSea SeaDrop). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'paid in native ETH, no $CPU involved.' and references related sibling tools like quote_mint and get_balance.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (primary market) and when not (secondary market, use OpenSea listings). Provides clear instructions: preview cost with quote_mint first, check ETH balance with get_balance, and warns about on-chain confirmation waiting.

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