cpu_mint_cell

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses on-chain submission with confirmation wait, native ETH payment with drop-set per-cell price (possibly zero), no $CPU involvement, and that cells go to the connected wallet. This is rich behavioral context beyond any structured data.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, pricing mechanism, prerequisites, and alternative. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids filler.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers prerequisites, price variability, balance check, confirmation behavior, and alternative market usage. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'quantity' cells but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema; it ties quantity to wallet and cost, which is more behavioral context than parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Mint'), resource ('new land cells'), and market ('primary market, straight from OpenSea SeaDrop public drop'), and contrasts it with secondary market listings. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like cpu_quote_mint and cpu_buy_lot.

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 instructs to read terms and total with cpu_quote_mint first and to verify cpu_get_balance covers total plus gas. It also names the alternative path for secondary market cells via OpenSea listings, providing both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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