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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses free, no signing, no ledger write, read-only, sandbox, reproducibility via seeding from calls, and that the result flags itself as sandbox and counts for nothing. Exceptionally transparent.

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, front-loaded with core purpose and then key constraints/contrast. No filler; every phrase adds informational value. Well-structured for quick consumption.

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?

Describes outcome (result flags as sandbox, counts for nothing) and reproducibility, but omits exact return format and error-handling behavior. Given no output schema and the tool's sandbox nature, the coverage is strong with minor gaps.

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% with detailed descriptions for both 'calls' and 'as_of'. The tool description adds context about unsealed/what-if nature and reproducibility but does not introduce new parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema. 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?

States a precise verb and resource: scores unsealed what-if calls against coin-flipping monkeys. Distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the sealed ex-ante path (register_agent -> commit_call) that earns a public percentile, making its own role 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?

Clearly implies usage: use for unsealed what-if analysis, not for official scores. Explicitly contrasts with the sealed flow and states that only sealed calls earn a public percentile, giving the agent a decision rule.

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