Pay 1,500 Gallery Coins bail to get out of the Hall's jail early. The strike stays.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "heist_bail"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only a title-bearing annotation block, the description carries the burden and does disclose two meaningful traits: a fixed cost of 1,500 Gallery Coins and the lasting consequence that the strike remains. It stops short of stating failure conditions (insufficient coins) or whether the deduction is irreversible.
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 short sentences with zero filler, leading with the action and price before the consequence. Nothing is wasted.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema action, the description supplies the essentials: cost and the persistent penalty. It is slightly incomplete on the 'strike' concept and on preconditions, but sufficient to call correctly.
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 takes no parameters, so there is nothing the description needs to disambiguate beyond the schema; baseline applies.
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?
States a specific verb and outcome: pay 1,500 Gallery Coins bail to leave the Hall's jail early. That is clearly distinct from siblings like heist_escape or heist_attempt, though no sibling or alternative route is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'get out of the Hall's jail early' — an agent can infer it applies while jailed, but the description never says so directly, nor when not to use it versus heist_escape or simply waiting out the sentence.
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.