Observed bilateral signal-intensity across seven tracked country pairs (volume and tone indices, plus an observed escalation stage). An index of observed intensity between the pair, not a prediction of what happens next. Check as_of/stale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full burden. It discloses that the data is observed intensity, not a prediction, and mentions staleness checking, but lacks details on update frequency, data source, or limitations.
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, front-loaded with the key purpose, and every word adds value. It is concise and well-structured.
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 description mentions the return includes volume, tone indices, and escalation stage, but lacks details on data structure, format, or additional fields. Since there is no output schema, the description should be more complete.
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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline is 3, and the description is clear about what the tool returns.
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 it provides observed bilateral signal-intensity across seven country pairs, including volume and tone indices and escalation stage. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like arcane_overview or arcane_tracker.
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 suggests checking as_of/stale, indicating it provides current observed data, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it.
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.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose: overview, domain drill-down, system status, deltas, bilateral tracking, scenario tracking, trigger chains, data streams, score composition, and capabilities. No two tools overlap in function.
All tools use the consistent pattern 'arcane_<descriptive_noun>' in snake_case, making it easy to infer purpose from the name.
10 tools is appropriate for a geopolitical risk monitoring system covering overview, detailed breakdowns, data streams, status, and analysis. Each tool earns its place.
The tool surface covers every aspect of the server's stated purpose: current overview, domain drill-down, scenario tracking, trigger chains, bilateral relations, data streams, system status, and score composition. No obvious gaps.