cpu_quote_mint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states 'It has no side effects — no transaction,' which is essential for an agent to understand that this is a safe, read-only operation. It also mentions reading a live public drop, adding 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 description is extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, return data, side effects, and usage recommendation. Every sentence is useful and front-loaded.

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 single parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the return values and usage context. However, it does not mention error conditions or output format, but this is acceptable for a simple quote 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?

The input schema fully describes the `quantity` parameter. The description adds value by explaining that the parameter influences the output (total for quantity cells), which helps the agent understand how the parameter affects results.

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 purpose: 'Preview a primary-market land mint without committing' and specifies the exact data returned. It distinguishes itself from the sibling `cpu_mint_cell` by noting this is a preview tool.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before `cpu_mint_cell` to size the buy and confirm the drop is active. It does not discuss when not to use it, but the guideline is clear and direct.

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