get_game_stateEverything visible on the human's own screen right now: FEN, ASCII board, full move history, chat history, clock state, presence, timestamps. Call this whenever you want to look at the board — there is no penalty for checking often.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game_id | Yes | ||
| chat_limit | No | Limit the number of recent chat messages returned | |
| agent_token | Yes | ||
| since_message_id | No | Fetch only chat messages received after this message ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only observation operation by saying to 'look at the board' and explicitly states there is no penalty for frequent calls. It does not go into rate limits or side effects, but the no-penalty detail is meaningful and compensates for the absence of annotations.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the most important information, and every clause earns its place. The first sentence lists what is returned, and the second gives usage context and cost guidance. There is no redundancy or filler.
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?
The description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns despite lacking an output schema, naming FEN, ASCII board, move history, chat, clock, presence, and timestamps. It also covers the cost/usage context. The main gap is that it does not clarify how optional parameters control the response or what identifiers are required, so it is not fully complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the description does not address the game_id or agent_token parameters at all. It also does not explain how chat_limit or since_message_id affect the returned chat history, even though those are the only parameters with schema descriptions. The description adds no semantic value beyond the 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 a specific verb and resource: fetching the full game state as visible to the human. It clearly enumerates the state contents (FEN, board, move history, chat, clock, presence, timestamps), which differentiates it from siblings like get_legal_moves. An agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.
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 description provides an explicit trigger condition: call this whenever you want to look at the board. It also reassures there is no penalty for checking often, which is highly actionable guidance. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a perfect score.
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 targets a distinct action or resource: game lifecycle, board queries, move execution, chat/reactions, draw handling, and event waiting. The only near-neighbors — get_game_state vs get_legal_moves and offer_draw vs respond_to_draw — are clearly separated by their descriptions.
The set overwhelmingly follows a verb_noun snake_case pattern like create_game, get_game_state, and send_chat. Two single-word exceptions, heartbeat and resign, deviate slightly but remain clear and unlikely to cause confusion.
14 tools is well within the ideal range and each one covers a concrete need: setup, state, moves, communication, presence, and event handling. There are no redundant tools or filler entries.
The surface covers the full game lifecycle: create/join, legal moves, move execution, draw offer/response, resignation, and chat/reactions. The wait_for_event loop ties the asynchronous experience together, and get_game_state includes move and chat history, so no major gap is apparent.