cpu_reveal

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discharges it thoroughly. It discloses the on-chain transaction, payment structure (quoted price in ETH plus a `$CPU` burn), approval behavior, second-reveal depletion requirement, settlement on self-service networks, and exact failure behavior when `$CPU` is insufficient. This exceeds what structured annotations could reasonably provide.

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 long but every sentence carries essential operational information, and the primary action plus prerequisite is front-loaded. It loses the top score only because it is a dense single paragraph with no structural cues such as bullets or explicit outcome headings, which would improve scanability.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: prerequisites, costs, repeat-reveal rules, network-mode dependency, retry behavior, and failure/recovery are all covered. The remaining gaps are that it does not mention the sibling `cpu_fulfill_reveveal` and does not clearly specify the normal return payload beyond 'returns the deposits it rolled' on self-service networks.

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 sole parameter `tokenId` is already fully described in the schema, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the ownership nuance ('a cell you own') but does not add new parameter-level syntax or format details, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Reveal the deposits of a cell you own.' It is not a tautology and adds the prerequisite of calling `cpu_authenticate` first. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling `cpu_fulfill_reveal`, leaving the boundary between the two implicit.

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 gives strong guidance: call `cpu_authenticate` first, understand the network randomness mode via `cpu_get_game_config`, retry on a still-pending reveal, and follow a specific recovery path through `cpu_quote_swap` and `cpu_swap`. It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative like `cpu_fulfill_reveal` or list exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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