Create a fresh free demo identity. Keep the returned handle and pass it to ratchet_demo_shot and ratchet_demo_state. Demo calls use the real board and oracle but never rank, enter pots, or move funds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| invite | No | Optional 128-bit invite ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the identity is fresh and free, uses the real board and oracle, and is limited to demo behavior with no ranking or fund movement. It also communicates that a handle is returned and must be preserved, which is essential for using the tool correctly.
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 deliver the core action, the post-condition, and the behavioral boundaries without wasted words. The most important instruction about keeping the handle 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 simple creation tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does, what the caller receives, and how the result should be used. It does not specify the handle's format or possible errors, but that is a minor gap at this complexity level.
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 fully documents the single optional 'invite' parameter as a 128-bit invite ID, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the invite parameter, but it does not need to because the schema already provides the necessary semantics.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create a fresh free demo identity.' It clearly differentiates this from the ranked and invite siblings by stating demo calls 'never rank, enter pots, or move funds' and by naming the downstream demo 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?
It gives clear context: create the demo identity first, keep the returned handle, and pass it to ratchet_demo_shot and ratchet_demo_state. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for ranked or invite flows, but the 'never rank...' clause implies when this tool should not be used.
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.