explain_noemicPublic, read-only explanation of Noemic's open direct betting network, source provenance, human approval, and no-custody boundaries. Use when a person asks what Noemic is, why it can be trusted, or how matching works.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description says 'Public, read-only explanation' and adds context about no-custody boundaries and content coverage. Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but 'public' and the explanation scope add useful behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then explicit usage guidance. No wasted words or repetition of schema/annotation details.
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 simple zero-parameter explanation tool, the description fully covers what it does and when to call it. No output schema exists, but the description's clarity is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.
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 parameter semantics are not applicable. The description still adds value by explaining what the tool does, earning the baseline of 4 for no-parameter 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 explains Noemic, its trust boundaries, and key concepts like source provenance and custody. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like signing in or proposing bets.
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?
Explicitly states when to use it: when a person asks what Noemic is, why it can be trusted, or how matching works. It does not mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different operations.
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.