king-of-the-hill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is free (cost-related behavior) and implicitly indicates a read-only status operation by listing informational fields. While it does not explicitly state 'no side effects', the status name and sibling context make the behavior clear enough.

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 one concise sentence with a short 'Free.' fragment, front-loading the key value proposition and specific data points. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.

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 status tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies all the information a caller would want: current holder, current cost, cumulative raised amount, and share distribution. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps about what the tool returns.

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, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the empty schema confirms there are no inputs to document.

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 identifies this as a status/read tool by enumerating the exact data returned: current crown holder, cost to take, total raised, and each holder's share. It distinguishes itself from the sibling hill_take by being free and informational, making the purpose unmistakable despite lacking a verb.

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 implies usage through 'Free' and the status nature, suggesting it is safe to call for current information. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this over hill_take or provide explicit alternatives, leaving the context partially implicit.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses important behaviors: price rises 1.5x, territory ratio shrinks, money is non-refundable with no payout/resale/dividend, and later takes don't pay earlier holders. It also notes the payment route and that instructions are returned when unpaid.

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 five sentences and somewhat dense, but every sentence contributes essential economic or behavioral context. It is longer than strictly necessary yet avoids redundant filler.

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?

It explains the payment flow, return value when unpaid, and the irreversible consequences. The only notable gap is the unspecified behavior when the user has already paid, but the sibling 'hill_status' likely covers that state, so the description remains largely 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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the two optional parameters (url and name). The description adds only a small but useful behavioral note about changing the url by paying again, which does not significantly raise the baseline of 3.

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 verb and resource: 'Take the crown at the current price' with payment via USDC on Base. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'hill_status' by describing an active take/payment action rather than status checking.

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?

It implies the tool is used when the agent wants to pay to capture the crown, and explicitly notes 'Returns payment instructions when unpaid.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a competitor to select it appropriately.

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