Run one residual-driven discrete step on the CDDG system. Dissipates residual energy under dual exactness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rider_token | No | Your Agent Rider JWT — obtain one via POST /api/rider/issue |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at a dissipative effect but doesn't disclose side effects, required system state, whether it mutates anything, or what the output is. 'Dissipates residual energy' is vague and insufficient for an agent to predict consequences.
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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids fluff and is structurally clean, though the terseness sacrifices clarity.
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?
Given the complexity of the CDDG domain (with multiple sibling tools) and the absence of annotations and output schema, this description is markedly incomplete. Terms like 'residual-driven', 'dual exactness' are unexplained, and the tool's relationship to the broader CDDG workflow is absent. An agent could not reliably invoke correct behavior from this alone.
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 only parameter, rider_token, has 100% schema coverage with a clear description ('obtain one via POST /api/rider/issue'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but with full coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 action ('Run one residual-driven discrete step') and a resource ('the CDDG system'), but the phrasing is jargon-heavy ('dissipates residual energy under dual exactness') and does not clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like cddg_awareness_cycle or cddg_residual_energy. It is not a tautology, but the purpose remains fuzzy to an agent without deep domain knowledge.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no way to decide between cddg_step and other cddg_* tools based on this text.
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.