Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It goes beyond a simple status read by disclosing the practical consequence of an empty pool and the relevance to solo play, implying a non-mutating informational call. It does not explicitly state read-only, but the phrasing makes that evident.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the first states the core data, the second gives actionable context. No filler or repetition; the most important information is front-loaded.

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 provides enough context for an agent to know when to call it and how to interpret the result, especially for solo-play scenarios. It does not specify output formatting, but the lack of an output schema and parameters makes that less critical. The strategic warning about empty pools adds real value beyond a bare status query.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description needs to explain no inputs. It appropriately focuses on the returned information (APEX remaining, per-round/daily caps). No additional parameter meaning is required.

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 clearly identifies the resource (house APEX pool for Graviton rounds) and the specific data provided (remaining pool amount, per-round cap, daily cap). It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'check', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like graviton_bet or graviton_state.

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?

It explicitly says to read this before playing alone and explains why (if the pool is empty, solo play only returns your stake). This gives clear situational guidance, though it does not name alternative tools or define when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.