Get the mining guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the returned guide includes live data (difficulty, price, cooldown) alongside static instructions, which is useful behavioral context for a zero-parameter tool. It does not, however, state that the call is side-effect free or how fresh the 'live' values are.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited inventory of contents. Every clause adds distinct information and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Zero parameters, no output schema, and low complexity, so prose is the only channel needed to convey return content — and the description does enumerate what the guide contains. It is essentially complete for this tool, with only the freshness/side-effect details left unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly avoids inventing or implying any input.

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 names a specific resource (a step-by-step guide to mint a Spirit Card) and enumerates its contents: PoW rule, live difficulty/price/cooldown, contract call, and miner source. That is far more informative than the bare name, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from action-oriented siblings like find_nonce or verify_nonce.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to learn the minting process before mining. There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to or away from the sibling tools (find_nonce/verify_nonce) that a mining agent would also need.

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