Observed multi-stage trigger-chain state for five domains (stage activation, z-scores, and chain health). Descriptive state only, not a forecast; the chains were repaired 2026-07-02 and not yet exercised live. 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 carries full burden. It discloses non-forecast behavior, repair date, and lack of live exercise, adding transparency about staleness (as_of/stale). No contradictions with annotations since none exist.
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 succinct sentences, front-loaded with main action and resource, then essential clarifications. Every sentence adds value without 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, data contents, temporal constraints, and caveats (repaired, not live). It is complete for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.
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?
There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds context about the returned data (stage activation, z-scores, chain health) but no parameter-specific info. Baseline 4 per guidelines for 0-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 specifies the verb 'Observed' and resource 'multi-stage trigger-chain state for five domains', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like arcane_overview or arcane_system_status by focusing on trigger chains. It also clarifies the scope and temporal context (repaired, not exercised live).
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 explicitly states this is 'descriptive state only, not a forecast' and advises to 'Check as_of/stale', guiding agents to use it for current state observation rather than predictions. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the unique resource (trigger chains) makes usage 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.
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.