View the live ready-to-snipe board: scores, symbols, tokens, risk, per-agent investigations, current work, and counts.
Ready-to-snipe list (score, symbols, tokens, risk), investigating, current work per agent, counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It lists content categories but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, has side effects, pagination, or rate limits; only the word 'list' weakly implies retrieval.
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?
It is a single concise fragment with no filler, and the core 'ready-to-snipe list' is front-loaded. However, the comma-separated content list is structurally rough and under-specified rather than a complete, well-formed statement.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required in the description. Still, with numerous snipe_* siblings and no annotations, the description omits enough usage and differentiation context that an agent may struggle to select this tool 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 and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema is complete for invocation. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4; the description does not need to explain parameters.
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 is a noun phrase listing board contents ('ready-to-snipe list', 'investigating', 'current work per agent', 'counts') rather than stating an action. An agent can infer it retrieves a dashboard, but the purpose is vague and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like snipe_list or snipe_item.
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?
No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative selection guidance is provided. The agent must guess whether to call snipe_board instead of snipe_list, next_snipe, or other snipe_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.