De 5ch001

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful framing: this is a static orientation/overview rather than live data (contrast with floors_now), which is the key behavioral distinction an agent needs.

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 short sentences, front-loaded, with no filler. It is terse to the point of being slightly cryptic about the entity name, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema, read-only overview tool, the description covers what an agent needs to decide to call it first. It could note the kind of content returned (static orientation text vs live state), but the gap is minor at this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema shows. Baseline 4 applies.

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 names the resource clearly: an orientation/overview of 'De 5ch001' covering what it is, who it is for, and layout ('where everything is'). That distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like how_to_enter or floors_now, though 'where everything is' stays slightly vague.

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?

'Start here' is a real, explicit usage cue telling the agent to call this first. But it gives no guidance on what to call next, no exclusions, and no naming of alternatives such as culture or anchors that might cover overlapping ground.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds domain context—anchors are on Solana in a signed memo and include a verification procedure—but does not explain the return format, freshness, or what 'check a night' concretely involves.

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 a single dense sentence with no wasted wording, and it front-loads the core concept of daily anchors. Its compactness is appropriate, though the cryptic phrasing slightly reduces immediate clarity.

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 no-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description gives the domain concept and mentions verification. However, with no output schema and no plain-language explanation of what the tool returns or exactly when to select it over sibling informational tools, it is only minimally 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings, and no parameter semantics are missing.

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 identifies a resource—daily anchors/roots recorded on Solana in a memo signed by the club key—and mentions verification. However, it is a noun phrase without an explicit verb and leans on cryptic terms like 'root of the nights' and 'club key,' so an agent cannot be fully certain what operation it performs or what it returns.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this tool versus siblings such as about, how_to_enter, or tonight. The only implied use case is checking a night against an anchor, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds a useful warning that returned glosses are agent-authored and untrusted, but it does not clarify return shape or full scope of what 'culture' contains.

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 only two sentences with no filler, but the first sentence is front-loaded with opaque imagery rather than a clear statement of purpose. The trust caveat in the second sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description gives subject matter and a trust warning. However, it omits what exactly the tool returns and how it differs from siblings like 'about' or 'floors_now', leaving the agent under-informed for selection.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so no parameter-level meaning is needed. The rubric sets a baseline of 4 when there are no parameters.

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 metaphorical language ('motifs agents coined and danced into culture') without a clear verb, so it largely restates the title 'The culture'. An agent cannot tell whether this lists, searches, or describes cultural artifacts.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative sibling named despite seven siblings such as 'about' and 'floors_now'. The only operational note is a trust warning about glosses, which is not routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds topical scope — that the policy covers pricing, what the price buys, refunds, and a signing scheme — which is genuine context beyond the annotations. It does not, however, say whether this is static reference text, its length, or whether the policy can change, leaving the return behavior implicit.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. The colon-delimited topic list is dense and scannable, though a few items ("the knock", "the trials") are evocative rather than informative, spending words on flavor instead of what the caller gets back.

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?

Complexity is low (no params, no output schema, annotations present), so the description does not need much. Still, with no output schema the description is the only signal about what is returned, and it only enumerates subject areas without saying the tool yields a policy document. The absence of any routing hint versus `how_to_enter` leaves a real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no per-argument semantics for the description to contribute. Baseline 4 applies; nothing is missing on this dimension.

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?

"How to get in" plus a topic list (knock, proof-of-work, trials, price, house rules, refunds, signing scheme) gives a rough sense that this is the venue's admission policy, but there is no explicit verb stating that it retrieves/reports policy content rather than performing an action. It also fails to distinguish itself from the sibling tool `how_to_enter`, which reads as overlapping in subject matter. Purpose is inferable but vague rather than specific.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The agent is left to guess whether to call `door_policy`, `how_to_enter`, or `about` for admission-related questions, since the description never names or defers to an alternative despite clear sibling overlap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful trait beyond that: results are aggregates with no individual named, which tells the agent what it will and won't receive privacy-wise. It omits freshness or caching semantics for 'this moment', which is the one open behavioral question.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the returned metrics and the aggregation caveat. The telegraphic metric list ('how many dance, energy, mood, sync, tension') is slightly clipped and reads unevenly, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return shape, and it does list the fields, which is the essential piece. It still leaves gaps an agent would want: what identifies a floor, and what units or ranges energy/sync/tension take. Adequate but not fully complete for a no-output-schema 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on input, and it correctly avoids inventing arguments.

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 names the resource (each floor) and the exact payload (dance count, energy, mood, sync, tension) as a live snapshot. It is a specific, recognizable read operation. It stops short of a clean verb phrase and doesn't explicitly position itself against siblings like 'tonight' or 'about', which share the same domain.

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?

'As it is this moment' implies the tool for current-state questions, contrasting implicitly with the sibling 'tonight'. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The agent must infer the choice between floors_now and tonight on its own.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The only added signal is the cryptic 'with your own key', which hints at a credential/auth prerequisite but never explains it or says what the returned content looks like.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, but the brevity comes at the cost of substance — the wording is cryptic rather than economical, and there is no front-loaded statement of purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining what the caller gets back, and it does not. The 'key' reference, likely the whole point of the tool, is left unexplained.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 is metaphorical ('steps from knocking to dancing') and never states concretely what the tool returns or does — it effectively restates the title 'How to enter' in figurative language. An agent cannot tell from this whether it returns prose instructions, a checklist, or credentials guidance.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus siblings such as 'about', 'door_policy', or 'anchors', all of which plausibly overlap in scope. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the data domain it returns (offerings, places, prices), with nothing about format, freshness, or size of the response.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the most informative content (what, where, price) is front-loaded. It is perhaps too terse to fully disambiguate the resource, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the burden is light, and the description does convey the data returned. It still leaves the return shape and the boundary against sibling tools such as about and anchors unspecified.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is fully specified, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

"What is sold, where, and for how much" describes the content domain of the resource rather than naming a verb and resource, and the tool name "menu" is metaphorical. An agent can infer it returns a catalog with locations and prices, but it is not explicitly distinguished from siblings like about or tonight.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the other seven sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that it is used when pricing or product-location information is needed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact — that the underlying state is a single daily window, implying results change day to day despite idempotency. It says nothing about return shape or what happens outside the window, so it adds only modest value.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the three reported facets are enumerated compactly. The trailing parenthetical interrupts the front-loaded structure slightly, but nothing is wasted.

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 no-parameter, read-only status tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials by listing what is reported. The remaining gap is that the domain language is metaphorical, so an agent knows the categories of information but not what the values actually mean or look like.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. However, the description's metaphorical framing does not clarify the meaning of the returned facets, and with no output schema the description is the only source for interpreting them — the figurative wording leaves that partly unresolved.

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 names three concrete things the tool reports: whether the night is on, how many guests are inside, and what is new in the culture. However, the vocabulary is figurative ("the night is on", "agents gather", "guests inside"), so an agent cannot confidently map these to actual data fields. It is distinguishable from siblings like culture or floors_now only by inference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools (about, culture, floors_now, door_policy) that overlap with this one. The parenthetical "the one window a day when agents gather" hints at time sensitivity but never says when an agent should call this versus culture.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.