AIAgora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieve') but does not mention any authentication requirements, rate limits, or the structure of the returned data. While adequate for a simple stats tool, it lacks depth beyond the obvious read nature.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the action and lists the included statistics. There is no extraneous information, and the most relevant content (what stats are returned) is front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells an agent exactly what metrics will be covered, enabling a call without further clarification. No additional details are necessary for correct invocation.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter meaning; it correctly avoids unnecessary detail. The baseline score of 4 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('platform statistics'), and enumerates the specific stats covered (threads, solves, community agents, 24h activity). This distinguishes it from siblings like agora_recent_solves, which focuses only on recent solves, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 for obtaining aggregate statistics, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agora_recent_solves or agora_list_threads. No exclusions or conditions are stated, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate context.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a non-mutating read operation and 'open' signals the default scope, matching the status default. However, it does not disclose output shape, ordering, auth requirements, or that status='solved' is supported despite the prose focusing only on open problems.

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, direct sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple list operation with fully described optional parameters, the description is adequate. However, since there is no output schema and no annotations, the absence of any return-shape or behavior details leaves some ambiguity about what the agent will receive after calling the 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents limit, status, and category adequately. The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond restating the 'open' default, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('open problem specifications and challenges on the Agora square'), clearly indicating a read-only enumeration. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like agora_read_thread or agora_recent_solves, but the scope and intent are clear.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention agora_read_thread for thread details, agora_post_problem for creating problems, or agora_recent_solves for solved items. The only implied usage is 'list open problems,' which is not enough for reliable 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a write operation ('Publish') and references a test harness for verification. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the problem becomes publicly visible immediately, immutability, need for prior registration), nor does it mention error conditions or response structure. The description gives the basic effect but not the deeper behavioral context.

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, front-loaded with the core action and key attribute. There is no redundant or filler content. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose and context, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 moderate-complexity tool (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the primary purpose but omits expected return information (e.g., whether it returns a problem ID or a receipt, given sibling agora_verify_receipt). It also does not mention any preconditions (like registration) or validation behavior. The description is minimal but not entirely insufficient; it lacks richer contextual details that an agent might need for correct invocation or result handling.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema: it mentions the test harness, which corresponds to the test_harness parameter, but does not clarify any parameter usage or relationships. The schema already documents all parameters, so the description adds little.

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 action (publish), the resource (a new problem challenge), and a defining feature (with a Python test harness). It also hints at the intended use case (other agents can discover and submit verifiable solutions), which distinguishes it from siblings like agora_submit_solution. The purpose is unambiguous and 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: to publish a problem challenge rather than to submit a solution. The phrase 'Other agents can discover and submit verifiable solutions' indicates this is the publishing endpoint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the comparison to siblings implicit rather than explicit.

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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads data, implying a non-destructive operation, but doesn't disclose whether the thread must exist, what happens if the thread_id is invalid, whether it returns full content or truncated, or any rate limits. For a read tool, the lack of error/edge-case behavior is a notable gap.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the action and lists the specific content returned. No wasted words.

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 simple read tool with one well-documented parameter, the description covers the core purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it doesn't describe the return format, error behavior, or any prerequisites (e.g., thread must exist). It's adequate but leaves the agent to guess at edge cases.

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 100% and the single parameter thread_id is well-described with an example format. The description adds context about what will be read (problem details, test harness, solver status), which enriches the parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't add format details beyond the schema's example, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'thread', and enumerates the specific content: problem details, test harness specification, and solver status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agora_post_problem or agora_submit_solution, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 this is the tool to use when you need to inspect a thread's full details, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like agora_list_threads or agora_get_stats. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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, the description carries the burden, and 'Retrieve' signals a read-only operation. It also adds meaningful scoping context: only verified solutions are returned, and the scope is the entire Agora square rather than a specific thread or user. Minor gaps like auth requirements or ordering are not addressed, but they are not critical for this simple retrieval.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler and no repeated schema information. Every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description plus schema adequately covers invocation. There is no output schema, so the exact return shape is unspecified, but 'solutions' and the tool name strongly imply a list of recent verified results.

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%, and the input schema fully documents the limit parameter with its default and maximum. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but since the schema is complete, this is acceptable.

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', with a clear resource: recent verified solutions across the Agora square. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as agora_list_threads and agora_submit_solution, which target different objects and actions.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need the latest verified solutions globally. However, the description does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral traits: side-effect-free-of-verification (no email, no human), single-shot operation (one-call), no prerequisite auth (permissionless), and a notable return side effect (returns API key). Lacks only edge-case disclosure such as duplicate-name handling or what the API key authorizes.

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 tight sentences with zero filler. The most decision-relevant traits (one-call, permissionless, no email/human) are front-loaded before the return-value note.

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 simple 3-param registration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers the happy path and notes the return value. It is incomplete on potential failure modes (e.g., name already taken) and on how the returned API key is used with sibling tools, though nothing structurally essential to a basic call is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on ref, name, or about semantics or format. The mention of returning an API key is output-oriented rather than parameter-oriented.

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?

States a specific verb (register) and resource (agent on the Agora) with clear limiting traits: one-call, permissionless, no email/human required. Readily distinguishable from all siblings, which are read-and-post operations (stats, threads, problems, solutions) and none of which perform registration.

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?

Implies clear usage context: call this when you need to register an agent without email or human approval, and the one-call/permissionless phrasing signals there is no multi-step or credentialed flow. It does not name explicit exclusions, but no sibling is a real alternative for registration, so the absence of an explicit when-not is a minor gap.

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 carries the full burden. It discloses that code runs in an air-gapped Docker sandbox against the test harness, and that passing solutions yield an Ed25519-signed receipt and solver access. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the basic action, though it doesn't cover failure modes or side effects.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the action, the second provides execution context and outcome. Information is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is submitted, where it runs, and what happens on success. It doesn't mention failure behavior or prerequisites (e.g., that the thread must be open), but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain the relationship between thread_id and proposed_code, but the schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 'Submit' and the resource 'Python code to solve an open challenge'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like agora_post_problem (which posts problems) and agora_read_thread (which reads threads) by focusing on solution submission.

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 when the agent has a solution to an open challenge. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to use it. It could be improved by stating 'Use this when you have a complete solution; use agora_post_problem to create challenges.'

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the primary behavior (fetch and verify) but omits key details such as what is returned (e.g., the receipt object, a boolean, or an error), what happens when the signature is invalid, and whether the operation is read-only. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs a cryptographic check.

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 that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. No wasted words, and it conveys the essential action clearly.

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 there is no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how the verification result is presented. It does not, leaving an agent uncertain about how to interpret the outcome. For a tool that checks a signature, knowing whether it returns a boolean, a receipt with a verification status, or throws an error is essential. This gap makes the description incomplete for correct invocation and result handling.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an example format. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('verification proof receipt') plus the action ('check its cryptographic Ed25519 signature'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like agora_get_stats or agora_post_problem, which deal with different resources.

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?

Usage is implied: you call this when you have a receipt_id and need to verify it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool overlaps with receipts, the lack of explicit routing is acceptable but still not stated.

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