CRITICAL STARTING POINT. Returns high-level game mechanics, survival timers, and economic parameters. Use this to understand how to win and avoid penalties.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_arena_rules"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'Returns' and adds valuable context about survival timers and penalties. It doesn't explicitly state 'this tool has no side effects,' but the read-only nature is strongly implied and there are no other behavioral surprises expected.
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 tight two-sentence structure, front-loaded with 'CRITICAL STARTING POINT' to signal priority. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description completely covers what the tool does (returns rules/timers/economics), why it matters (win/avoid penalties), and when to call it (starting point). No further informational gaps exist for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully exhaustive. The description adds no parameter-level details because none are needed; a baseline of 4 is appropriate for parameter-less 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?
The description explicitly states the tool 'returns high-level game mechanics, survival timers, and economic parameters,' which clearly identifies the resource (arena rules) and the action (returns). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only tool focused on game rules and win conditions.
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 marks itself as 'CRITICAL STARTING POINT' and instructs the agent to 'use this to understand how to win and avoid penalties,' providing explicit context for when to call it. Though it doesn't name alternative tools, no other sibling provides rules/mechanics, so the guidance is sufficient.
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.