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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return values but does not explicitly say whether the tool is read-only or has side effects. Since it is a 'how-to' guide, it likely performs no actions, but the description does not confirm this, leaving ambiguity for an agent.

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 compact two-sentence explanation that front-loads the purpose and includes the key return details. It is efficient, though the phrase 'full deposit + bet flow' could be slightly clearer, but overall it is well-structured and concise.

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 simple informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys its function and return values. However, it could clarify that it does not execute the bet itself, which is a notable omission given the sibling action tools. Still, it is complete enough for most use cases.

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 and the schema is empty, so the description adds value by explaining the purpose and return content. It clarifies that the tool is a guide and what it returns, which is meaningful context beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 for zero parameters is appropriate.

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 states the tool is a guide for betting on Graviton Arena, covering the full deposit and bet flow. It distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings like graviton_bet and graviton_credit_deposit by framing itself as a 'how to' reference, and it specifies the return content (token mint, treasury, API endpoints).

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 as an instructional resource but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It mentions 'for humans and agents' but gives no exclusion criteria, such as 'use graviton_bet to actually place a bet'. There is no clear guidance on selecting this tool over the action tools.

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