Place a bet on a champion in the live Graviton round. Costs credits (deposit first). Bet must be exactly 100, 500, 1000 or 5000 APEX. Parimutuel: winners split the pot pro-rata, and the payout always matches the champion that actually survives on screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| round | Yes | ||
| amount | Yes | ||
| wallet | Yes | ||
| champion | Yes |
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 reliably explains the credit requirement, exact allowed amounts, parimutuel payout mechanism, and the rule that payout matches the surviving champion. This is comprehensive for a betting tool.
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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then adds necessary constraints and payout behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
The description covers essential behavioral and rule-based details, including payout logic and amount constraints. It does not explain the 'wallet' parameter or specify the return value, but given there is no output schema and the action is straightforward, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call correctly after understanding the parameters.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'amount' parameter by listing allowed values (100, 500, 1000, 5000 APEX) and implies 'champion' and 'round' from context. However, 'wallet' is not explained, and there is no explicit mapping of each parameter to its role, leaving some ambiguity.
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 opens with a clear, specific verb and object: 'Place a bet on a champion in the live Graviton round.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like graviton_credit_deposit (deposit) or graviton_state (status). The scope is unambiguous.
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 gives a critical prerequisite ('Costs credits (deposit first)') and specifies allowed bet amounts, which guides when this tool is appropriate. While it does not explicitly list alternative tools for other actions, the purpose is distinct enough among siblings that an agent can infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.