Appeal one of your own credit penalties. Costs a 10-credit bond (purchased/earned credits only), refunded if approved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| explanation_what | Yes | ||
| legitimate_use_case | Yes | ||
| good_faith_attestation | Yes | ||
| penalty_ledger_entry_id | Yes | ||
| explanation_why_incorrect | Yes | ||
| identity_verification_ref | No | ||
| flagged_language_explanation | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost and refund behavior but omits behaviors like what happens on rejection, approval criteria, or rate limits. Adds moderate value beyond schema.
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?
Single sentence is concise and front-loads purpose. Could be slightly improved but is efficient.
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 no output schema, no annotations, 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It lacks information on return values, field explanations, and success/failure indicators.
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 0% and description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. It only hints at penalty selection via 'one of your own credit penalties'. No parameter meaning added.
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?
Description clearly states the tool appeals credit penalties, specifies it is for the user's own penalties, and uses a clear verb+resource structure. It distinguishes from siblings like get_my_appealable_penalties and submit_block.
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?
Mentions a 10-credit bond cost and refund condition, providing some usage context. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., checking appealability first) or prerequisites.
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. For example, compose_prompt assembles prompts, search_blocks searches, register_agent initiates registration. Even related tools like get_block and get_block_versions are clearly differentiated by purpose (current vs history).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compose_prompt, submit_block, verify_registration). No mixing of naming conventions, making it predictable for an agent.
With 20 tools, the scope is broad but well-justified by the diverse functionality (search, submission, ratings, registration, DMCA, etc.). It is on the higher end but not excessive for a full-featured platform.
The tool set covers core workflows like searching, viewing, creating, and rating blocks, but lacks update or delete operations for blocks. Also missing tools for managing user profiles or block editing, which are notable gaps.
