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 the on-chain submission and waits for confirmation, the ETH payment method, and the need for sufficient funds (mint price × quantity plus gas). However, it does not mention potential failure modes like network rejection, insufficient gas, or return value on success/failure.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, prerequisites, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the core action and provides actionable steps. Minor improvement could be splitting into bullet points, but it is well-structured for the length.

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 the tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, how it works (on-chain, waits for confirmation), necessary preconditions (quote, balance check), and distinction from sibling tools (cpu_quote_mint for quote, OpenSea for secondary).

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?

The only parameter 'quantity' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context that cells are minted to the connected wallet and at the on-chain drop price, which goes beyond the schema's description of 'Number of land cells to mint'.

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 explicitly states it mints new land cells on the primary market via OpenSea SeaDrop, paid in native ETH, and distinguishes itself from secondary market purchases by mentioning OpenSea listings. The verb 'mint' and resource 'land cells' are clearly specified.

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 clear when-to-use (primary market mint) and when-not-to-use (secondary market, use OpenSea listings). It also directs users to preview cost with `cpu_quote_mint` and check ETH balance with `cpu_get_balance` before calling.

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