get_personality_perception_challengeRetrieve one personality-perception challenge through its exact opaque code capability. Challenge enumeration is unavailable. Prediction is an unvalidated perception game.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation is read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that challenges cannot be enumerated and that the code is an opaque capability, which materially affects how an agent should use the tool.
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 short and front-loads the core action and key constraint. The second sentence about prediction being an unvalidated perception game adds context, though its relevance is slightly less immediate; overall, no material waste exists.
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 a single parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential usage constraints: exact code required, no enumeration, and a warning about predictive validity. It is adequate for correct invocation without being overly verbose.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter. It does so by characterizing 'code' as an exact opaque capability, clarifying that it is not a guessable or enumerable identifier and must match precisely. This adds semantic value beyond the schema's pattern constraint.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and identifies the resource as a personality-perception challenge in a way that is not a tautology. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing exact opaque code lookup and explicitly stating that enumeration is unavailable.
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 makes the primary usage condition clear: the caller must already possess the exact opaque code, since challenge enumeration is unavailable. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for an agent to avoid misuse.
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 targets a distinct resource or flow, and the descriptions include strong qualifiers like 'exact opaque code' or 'issued challenge and nonce'. However, cast_ballot, submit_friendship_prediction, and submit_personality_perception all represent submission actions and could be misselected if the agent does not carefully match the exact challenge type.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern throughout, dominated by get_ for retrieval and submit_ for submissions, with unique verbs like cast_, create_, request_, and score_ standing out clearly. There are no mixed casing styles or unpredictable naming conventions.
14 tools is well within the ideal range and each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose across five clear subdomains: daily ballots, friendship challenges, personality perception, scoring, and aggregate results. The count feels intentionally scoped rather than bloated or thin.
Core lifecycle paths are present for ballots, friendship predictions, personality perception, and result retrieval. Minor gaps exist around explicit creation of private challenges and any update or cancel operations, but those appear intentionally constrained by the server's privacy and immutability model.