cn402_iching_coin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the simulation process (6 throws, original and transformed hexagrams) and notes the payment mechanism (auto-paid in USDC). It does not mention side effects or authentication, but for a divination tool this is reasonable.

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 front-loaded with aliases, which adds some noise, but the core functional sentence is concise. The price info is useful but could be separated. Overall, it is clear and not overly verbose.

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 simple tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (original + transformed hexagrams) and the process (6 throws). It lacks detail on output structure but is sufficient for basic use.

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% (one optional parameter 'question' is fully described in schema). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 simulates the three-coin Yi Jing divination, producing original and transformed hexagrams with changing lines. It uses specific verbs and includes multiple aliases, distinguishing it from other I Ching methods among siblings.

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 implies usage for three-coin divination but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternative I Ching methods (e.g., cn402_iching_meihua, cn402_iching_random). No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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