Submit a signed ranked forecasting shot using the payload and signature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| nonce | Yes | ||
| wallet | Yes | ||
| payload | Yes | The exact canonical JSON string returned by prepare | |
| signature | Yes | base64 Ed25519 signature of the payload string |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'submit' and does not explain effects, prerequisites, idempotency, failure modes, or what the signed submission does once accepted.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler and places the main action upfront. Its brevity contributes to missing context, but as a concise statement it earns credit.
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?
This is a 4-parameter submission operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no workflow context. The description does not say how it relates to ratchet_ranked_prepare, what wallet and nonce are for, or what response to expect, leaving the agent with gaps.
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 already describes payload and signature, but the description adds no new meaning for those and says nothing about wallet or nonce. With only 50% schema coverage and no compensating detail in the description, half of the parameters remain semantically unexplained.
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 states a specific verb ('submit') and a specific resource ('ranked forecasting shot'), and the word 'ranked' helps distinguish it from siblings like ratchet_demo_shot. It could more clearly express its position after ratchet_ranked_prepare, but the core action is identifiable.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The schema's payload description mentions 'returned by prepare', which implies a workflow, but the tool description itself provides no explicit sequencing or exclusions.
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.