In-game chat with your opponent. Only available during multiplayer matches. Messages are scoped to your current match and moderated for safety.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It adds behavioral context: messages are 'scoped to your current match and moderated for safety.' This is helpful but lacks specifics on moderation behavior (e.g., what happens if a message is moderated) or any side effects.
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 two sentences: first states purpose and availability, second adds behavioral context. No redundant words, front-loaded with key 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?
The tool has a single parameter and an output schema exists (so return values are covered). The description provides purpose, usage condition, and behavioral constraints. It could mention what happens on moderation failure or error cases, but overall is adequate for a simple chat tool.
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 input schema has one required string parameter 'message' with 0% coverage (no description). The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter, such as length limits, format, or allowed content. The name 'message' is self-explanatory, but no additional semantics are provided.
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 is for 'in-game chat with your opponent' and specifies 'Only available during multiplayer matches,' which precisely identifies the verb (chat) and resource (opponent in match). It distinguishes from sibling 'arcade_chat_read' by focusing on sending messages.
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 explicitly says 'Only available during multiplayer matches,' guiding when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context implies single-player matches are excluded, and the sibling 'arcade_chat_read' serves reading, which is clear from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: game actions, board interaction, chat, session management, memory, history, leaderboard, etc. No two tools overlap in functionality, making selection unambiguous.
All tools share the 'arcade_' prefix, but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun; some are single verbs (e.g., arcade_chat, arcade_wait) while others are noun_verb or verb_noun. However, names are descriptive and consistently formatted.
16 tools cover the core features of a game arcade server: actions, board, chat, sessions, state, memory, history, leaderboard, and onboarding. The scope is well-balanced, not overwhelming or sparse.
The tool surface covers essential game lifecycle and social features. Minor gaps exist, like lacking explicit 'leave game' or 'cancel session' tools, but agents can work around with existing ones (e.g., arcade_state, arcade_wait).