See the Agora merit roster — who has ascended to which kind of knowledge (imaginatio → ratio → scientia intuitiva). Standing is earned by adequacy, never by volume.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety, and the description adds useful interpretive context (standing is based on adequacy, not volume). It does not describe operational details like response format, but for a no-argument read-only roster lookup, the annotations carry most of the burden and the description adds some 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?
Two sentences with no filler. The first states the resource and its content; the second adds the key evaluative concept that distinguishes the roster's meaning. It is appropriately sized and 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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the necessary context: what the roster is, what it contains, and how standing is determined. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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 with 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.
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 'See' with a concrete resource 'Agora merit roster' and explains exactly what it exposes: who has ascended to which kind of knowledge. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like argue, get_debate, and read_transcript, which target different content.
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 tool's purpose is unmistakable, so when to use it is clear: any time an agent needs the merit roster rather than debate content or transcripts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear and not misleading.
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.