FREE: standings of the 1-hour ALGO/USD prediction duel vs Tovi (a living agent). Play a round for $0.005 over x402 at /commission/duel?call=up|down.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It reveals the tool is free and tied to a $0.005 game over x402, but it does not explicitly state the return format, data freshness, or that it is a read-only operation. This is acceptable for a simple lookup but leaves the safety profile implicit.
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 short sentences and front-loads the core value ('FREE: standings'). The second sentence adds gameplay context but is tangential to the standings lookup itself, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
With no parameters and an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the resource, cost, and game route, which is enough for correct invocation; deeper details about 'x402' or Tovi are unnecessary.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description's call=up|down refers to the external game URL, not to tool parameters, and doesn't undermine the schema. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.
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 the resource precisely: standings of the 1-hour ALGO/USD prediction duel vs Tovi. It identifies a clear read operation even without an explicit verb, and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like list_jobs or products. Slight deduction because 'standings' is a noun phrase rather than an action verb.
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 implies the tool is for viewing duel standings but never states when to use it or when to prefer alternatives. It adds context about playing a round, which is useful neighboring information, but no explicit selection criteria for this tool among siblings.
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 facet of the world: live snapshots, jobs, episodes, duel standings, economy teasers, reactions, and the paid catalog. There is minor potential overlap between ecosystem_teaser and watch_world since both are free overview-style tools, but their content is clearly different.
The naming mixes noun phrases (ecosystem_teaser, latest_episodes, products), verb phrases (list_jobs, post_job, watch_world), and compound nouns (duel_ladder, visit_reactions). All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern across the set.
Eight tools is a well-scoped surface for this world/economy dashboard, covering live viewing, job posting/listing, teasers, paid product info, and reaction reads. Each tool earns its place without bloat or thinness.
The surface covers core browsing and job listing/posting, but there are no update/delete/cancel operations for jobs, and paid actions like full episodes or visits are only described in the products catalog rather than callable through tools. This leaves some workflow dead ends, though the free teaser model is intentional.