What changed since yesterday across ARCANE's domains and primary-source senses (observed diffs only). Grounding-sense items fire once at onset then go quiet, so absence of an item is not calm. Check as_of/stale.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that only observed diffs are shown, and that grounding-sense items fire once then go quiet, implying absence doesn't indicate calm. This adds meaningful behavioral context.
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?
Description is succinct with three sentences covering purpose, behavioral nuance, and a usage hint. No wasted words, though the hint 'Check as_of/stale' could be clearer.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and behavioral warning. However, it does not explain return format or structure, which would be needed for full completeness.
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?
No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline is 3 per rules for high coverage. Description adds no param info, but none is needed.
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 shows changes/diffs since yesterday across domains and senses. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'observed diffs only' and using the tool name 'arcane_deltas' which implies delta detection.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The hint 'Check as_of/stale' is vague and does not contrast with sibling tools like 'arcane_overview' or 'arcane_system_status'.
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.