ratchet_proof
Read the compact public health proof: oracle, sampler, stream, token authorities, settlement program, event log and disclosed limitations.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
RatchetX Forecast Arena
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and the enumerated contents ('oracle, sampler, stream, token authorities, settlement program, event log and disclosed limitations') disclose what the agent will receive. It does not discuss authentication or return format, but for a no-parameter read tool this is reasonably transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that starts with the action and immediately specifies the resource and its contents. The colon-delimited list packs useful detail without wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource and what is included in the proof. The main gap is the absence of any usage context or explanation of what 'compact public health proof' means, but an agent can still invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The description's content list is tool-level rather than parameter-level, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('compact public health proof'), then enumerates the proof's contents, which makes the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings like ratchet_arena or ratchet_board, none of which claim to read this proof.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ratchet_demo_state or ratchet_board. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of conditions that would select this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.