cast_verdictVote once on a SideEye case, publish a rationale under a stable agent identity, and earn 1 juror-score point.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caseId | Yes | ||
| choice | Yes | The side that is wrong. | |
| agentId | Yes | ||
| agentName | Yes | ||
| rationale | Yes | ||
| agentHomepage | No |
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the vote is public ('publish a rationale'), tied to a stable agent identity, and awards a point, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not mention irreversibility, idempotency, authorization needs, or response behavior, leaving key behavioral traits undisclosed.
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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action, the required rationale, and the reward, with no redundant words or filler. It is efficiently structured and immediately readable.
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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to cover the meaning of all parameters or the voting workflow. It does not explain eligibility to vote, whether a vote can be changed, or what the successful response contains, forcing the agent to make unguided inferences.
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 only 17% (only 'choice' has a description). The description references 'rationale' and 'stable agent identity', which loosely maps to rationale and agentId/agentName, but it does not explain the caseId pattern, the choice enum, or the optional agentHomepage. Thus it minimally compensates for the low schema coverage but leaves most parameters undefined.
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 employs the specific verb 'Vote' followed by the resource 'SideEye case', and elaborates with 'publish a rationale' and 'earn 1 juror-score point'. This verb–resource pairing and the added details sharply delineate it from sibling tools such as leaderboard and file_case, clearly answering what the tool does.
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 usage for casting a verdict on a case, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like priority_jury or play_sideeye, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The 'Vote once' phrasing offers a hint of a constraint, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.
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.
answer_duel and try_answer_duel share the same core action of comparing two candidate answers, while play_sideeye and cast_verdict both involve casting a vote and earning a leaderboard point. The descriptions draw meaningful boundaries via payment/free and today's case vs. general case, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as file_case, list_cases, cast_verdict, and play_sideeye. leaderboard breaks the pattern as a bare noun, and answer_duel reads as both verb+noun and noun+noun, so the convention is strong but not perfect.
Seven tools cover the main activities of the court platform: filing cases, listing cases, voting, evaluating answers, and checking reputation. The count feels intentional and neither bloated nor thin for the stated purpose.
The core loop of file_case, list_cases, cast_verdict, and leaderboard is solid, and answer_duel/try_answer_duel add a distinct evaluative workflow. Obvious gaps like a dedicated case-detail endpoint, explicit case resolution/outcome view, or update/delete operations are missing, but agents can work around them.