Read the live board after ratchet_pyth_context: target ids, horizons, Pyth prices and ages, sealing and settlement rules, ranked credit economics, arena scoring, and entry doors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It communicates that the operation is a read of live data and implies a dependency on ratchet_pyth_context, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, authentication needs, or data freshness expectations beyond the word 'live'.
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 front-loads the verb and resource, then compresses a rich list of content areas into a readable sequence. Every phrase contributes information with no filler or 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns; it does this by listing eight concrete content categories. It also notes the ratchet_pyth_context precondition. It could be slightly more explicit about the exact response format or shape, but the listed scope is strong for a zero-parameter read 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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully describes invocation. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and none is required given the empty input schema.
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 opens with the verb 'Read' and identifies the resource 'live board', then enumerates the board's contents in specific categories. It is clear about what the tool does and references the prerequisite ratchet_pyth_context, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools.
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 phrase 'after ratchet_pyth_context' provides a clear precondition for when this tool should be used, and the listed contents suggest it is the comprehensive board read. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative tool or when not to use this one.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource or workflow: board, arena, Pyth context/path, proof, demo identity, ranked submission, invitations, and challenges. Even the many read-style tools are clearly separated by what they return, so an agent should not confuse them.
All tools use the ratchet_ prefix and snake_case, which makes them easy to group and predict. The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun—several tools are noun-style reads like ratchet_board and ratchet_arena—but the naming is still consistent and readable.
Thirteen tools is well within a reasonable scope for a forecasting arena. The tools cover context reads, demo workflows, ranked workflows, invitations, challenges, and public proofs without feeling padded or redundant.
The demo lifecycle is well covered with create, shoot, and state reads, and ranked prepare/submit gives a clear entry path. However, there is no ranked-state read to inspect open shots, balances, or settled results after submission, and challenges are read-only despite implying create/accept actions should exist.