Create or join a game session. Starts a match or joins a waiting lobby.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bots | No | ||
| game_id | Yes | ||
| players | No | ||
| match_id | No | ||
| opponent | No | player | |
| difficulty | No | medium |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It fails to mention side effects (e.g., state changes), required permissions, or what happens if the session already exists.
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 short and front-loaded, but too brief given the tool's complexity. It earns its keep but could be more informative without being 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?
With 6 parameters, 1 required, and no schema documentation, the description is incomplete. An output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the 6 parameters (game_id, bots, players, etc.). The agent has no context to correctly fill them.
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 two specific verbs ('create or join') and the resource ('game session'), and mentions starting a match or joining a lobby. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like arcade_action or arcade_state.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like arcade_wait or arcade_history. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
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).