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 and does it well: it discloses read-only behavior, external data source (OpenSea SeaDrop), currency (native ETH), the possibility of a zero amount, and the returned fields. It does not mention error behavior or prerequisites, but for a single-optional-parameter quote tool this is solid coverage.

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?

Two focused sentences, zero filler. The most important facts — no side effects, read-only, use before `cpu_mint_cell` — appear early, and every clause adds actionable information.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it defines what the tool returns, the units, the zero case, and the intended usage context. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to expect from the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents `quantity` as a positive integer string with a default. The description adds that `quantity` cells are used to compute the total, but does not need to go further because the schema fully specifies the parameter.

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 ('preview'), the resource ('primary-market land mint'), and the key differentiator ('without committing... no side effects — no transaction'). It clearly distinguishes this quoting tool from the executing sibling `cpu_mint_cell` and other mutation tools.

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'Use it before cpu_mint_cell to size the mint and confirm the drop is active.' It contrasts with the committing mint action and makes the intended workflow unambiguous. Naming the exact sibling it precedes is strong guidance.

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