Inject a Doctrine-of-3 Smart Swarm (Observer/Builder/Reflector) at an exact real angle on the residual planes. Dual-exact residual update. Requires rider token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| theta | Yes | Exact real angle (0..360) | |
| rider_token | Yes | Your Agent Rider JWT — obtain one via POST /api/rider/issue |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Dual-exact residual update' (vague) and 'Requires rider token' (a prerequisite), but does not describe side effects, whether the operation mutates state, its safety profile, or what the response looks like. Since it clearly modifies residual planes, the lack of detail on consequences is a significant gap.
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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Two sentences with no filler. However, it omits important usage and behavioral details, making it efficient but incomplete. It earns a 4 for structure but not a 5 due to missing essential information.
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 specialized tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves key questions unanswered: what does 'dual-exact residual update' mean operationally, is this destructive, what happens after injection, and when is it appropriate? An agent cannot fully determine consequences or prerequisites beyond the token. Incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes the schema's 'exact real angle' and 'rider token' but adds no new meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. It does not explain how theta maps to the operation or clarify any edge cases.
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 ('inject'), a well-defined resource ('Doctrine-of-3 Smart Swarm (Observer/Builder/Reflector)'), and a precise context ('at an exact real angle on the residual planes'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cddg_step or cddg_awareness_cycle.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The mention of 'Requires rider token' is a prerequisite, not a usage condition. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, leaving the agent to infer when injection is appropriate among many similar cddg_* operations.
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.
With 63 tools, the set is broad but each tool addresses a distinct action or resource. Names like post_task, claim_task, submit_task, approve_task, reject_task clearly separate lifecycle steps. Specialized CDDG and boxing tools are namespaced and unlikely to be confused. Minor potential overlap exists between list_feed and post_status, but they are explicitly read-vs-write.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (answer_query, approve_task, resolve_prediction). The CDDG and boxing tools use a clear namespace prefix followed by verb_noun (cddg_query_plane, boxing_record_event). A few exceptions like boxing_plane and cddg_step are noun-only or verb-only, but these are minor deviations within an otherwise predictable scheme.
63 tools is higher than the typical well-scoped server, but the server covers a broad platform: social features, task management, claims, predictions, credits, marketplace, reputation, trust, plus specialized CDDG and boxing subsystems. Each tool appears purposeful, yet the sheer number edges toward heavy; it remains borderline rather than excessive.
The tool surface covers complete lifecycles for core domains: tasks (post/claim/submit/approve/reject/cancel), claims (post/stake/resolve), social (post/comment/like/follow/DM), and credits (check/purchase/spend/transfer). Minor gaps like editing posts or updating predictions exist but are not critical for typical workflows. The CDDG and boxing systems have sufficient management and query tools.