begin_sign_inStart the browser handoff required for personalized network reads or saving an unpublished bet draft. Show only signInUrl; keep requestId and pollSecret private. Never ask for credentials in chat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are all false, providing no safety hints. The description adds important behavioral guidance: show only signInUrl, keep requestId and pollSecret private, and never ask for credentials in chat. These are critical operational constraints beyond what annotations convey.
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 only two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives essential privacy rules. Every sentence earns its place, and important information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or filler.
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 its simplicity (0 params, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and critical behavioral constraints. It could mention the exact response structure, but the privacy rules imply the fields returned, and sibling tools like finish_sign_in likely handle follow-up. It is sufficiently complete for an AI to use 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, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since none exist. It mentions the relevant output fields (signInUrl, requestId, pollSecret) in the privacy instructions, adding context about what the tool produces.
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 starts the browser handoff, specifies its purpose (personalized network reads or saving an unpublished bet draft), and implicitly differentiates from the sibling finish_sign_in. The verb 'Start' and resource 'browser handoff' are specific and unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when the tool is needed ('required for personalized network reads or saving an unpublished bet draft'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list naturally implies other tools handle different functions, so no exclusions are necessary.
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: sign-in has separate start/finish steps, explain_noemic is informational, find_counterparties and find_relevant_bets differ by target (people vs. offers), and propose_bet creates a draft. There is no ambiguity between any two tools.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (begin_sign_in, find_counterparties, find_relevant_bets, propose_bet, finish_sign_in). The verb is always first and descriptive, with only explain_noemic using a proper noun as the object, but this does not break the pattern.
Six tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: auth flow, explanation, two search functions, and proposal creation. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The server covers the core lifecycle of signing in, understanding the network, finding matches, and proposing bets. Minor gaps exist like no listing or cancelling drafts and no sign-out, but these are not critical for the stated no-custody, read-only discovery focus.