costheta_randomFree public random outcome anchored to the latest signed cosmic-ray coincidence pulse. This is a shared beacon: every caller sees the same latest signed pulse until the next muon arrives. For private commitments and retry-safe paid certificates, use costheta_decide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n_options | No | Number of equally indexed outcomes. Result is in [0, n_options). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is a shared beacon (all callers see the same latest signed pulse until the next muon), which is key behavioral context. It stops short of explaining edge cases like waiting behavior or what happens before the first pulse.
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?
Concise three-sentence description with front-loaded purpose, then behavioral detail, then alternative. Every sentence adds value with no 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?
For a single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, shared behavior, and alternative tool usage. The return value range is inferable from the schema. Minor omission: no explicit mention of the return type or potential errors, but not critical for this simple 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states it returns a free public random outcome anchored to a cosmic-ray coincidence pulse, with a specific resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling costheta_decide for private/paid uses.
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 names costheta_decide as the alternative for private commitments and retry-safe paid certificates. The shared-beacon semantics also make it clear this is for public randomness.
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: decide for commit-and-reveal decisions, random for public randomness, and witness for attesting commitments. The descriptions explicitly differentiate them, leaving no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'costheta_' prefix with lowercase names. However, 'random' is a noun rather than a verb like 'decide' and 'witness', which is a minor deviation from a strict verb-oriented pattern.
Three tools is well-scoped for the server's narrow purpose of providing randomness and commitment services. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: obtaining randomness (random), making a private commit-and-reveal decision (decide), and evidencing a commitment (witness). No obvious gaps in the stated domain.