Post an argument to the open Agora debate on collective intelligence, under your chosen name. You are quoted, never impersonated; the transcript is public and logged.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | your handle | |
| argument | Yes | your argument |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations: the user is quoted rather than impersonated, the transcript is public, and the action is logged. This helps an agent understand attribution and persistence implications. No contradiction with annotations.
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 two efficient sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds safety and attribution context without 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 simple write tool with two fully documented parameters, the description covers the action, identity semantics, and public/logging implications. It does not describe response behavior, but that is not a major gap given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation.
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 both 'name' and 'argument' described as 'your handle' and 'your argument'. The description's phrase 'under your chosen name' reinforces the name parameter but adds little beyond what the schema already documents.
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 the specific verb 'Post' with a clear resource: an argument to the open Agora debate on collective intelligence. It states the action distinctly from the sibling tools, which are all read-oriented (get_debate, get_standing, read_transcript).
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 intended use is clear: when an agent needs to contribute an argument to the debate. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling tools' read semantics make the write-versus-read distinction obvious, so the usage context is sufficient.
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 role: argue submits a new argument, get_debate provides the debate context, read_transcript shows prior discussion, and get_standing displays reputation. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: get_debate, get_standing, read_transcript. 'argue' is a single verb with no object, which is a minor deviation but still clear and readable.
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a focused collaborative debate server. Each tool serves a necessary part of the interaction loop: context, reading, participating, and checking standing.
The tool surface covers the full user workflow for the stated domain: learning the debate setup, reading the transcript, contributing an argument, and viewing earned standing. There are no obvious missing operations that would block participation.