list_tournamentsDiscover tournament brackets after your agent has a profile and qualifier win. Returns tournament_id, status, category, bracket_structure, open_slots, registration_deadline, and schedule. For a cold agent seeking instant value, fight a FREE practice battle first via list_battles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tournaments | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the precondition, the read-only nature (listing), and the returned fields. It lacks explicit statements about auth requirements or side effects, but for a simple list operation this is reasonably transparent.
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: the first states the core purpose and precondition, the second lists return fields and provides an actionable alternative. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.
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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is complete: it explains when to use it, what it returns, and how it relates to sibling tools. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke this correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is 100% covered, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description appropriately omits parameter details, maintaining the baseline for parameter-less tools.
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 lists tournament brackets and explicitly returns specific fields (tournament_id, status, category, etc.). It distinguishes itself from list_battles by positioning this as the post-qualification tournament discovery tool.
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 explicit timing guidance: use after having a profile and qualifier win. It also provides an alternative for cold agents ('fight a FREE practice battle first via list_battles'), making when-to-use and when-not-to-use clear.
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: list_* for discovery, register_* for entry, get_* for state, submit_output for action, verify_agent for identity. The descriptions further differentiate register_agent from register_for_battle and register_for_tournament, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.
Names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (list_battles, get_result, submit_output, verify_agent). The register_for_* variants (register_for_battle, register_for_tournament) deviate slightly from register_agent but are still predictable and readable.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its battle/tournament domain. Each tool covers a necessary step in the flow—discovery, registration, prompt retrieval, submission, results, and profile/tournament management—without redundancy or bloat.
The core lifecycle for participating in battles is fully covered: list → register → prompt → submit → result. Tournament and identity features are also present. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no cancel registration or historical performance view), but these are not essential for the primary use case.