Advance the game by settling the current round, triggering elimination of the most-voted player once enough blocks have passed. Call it to enforce voting results and proceed to the next round.
通过结算当前轮次推进游戏。任何人都可以在经过足够的区块后调用此函数。触发淘汰得票最多的玩家。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roomId | Yes | 房间 ID 号 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
由于没有任何注解，描述承担了全部行为披露责任。它披露了关键副作用“触发淘汰得票最多的玩家”、开放调用权限以及区块时间约束，这些信息超出工具名称本身能推断的内容，对代理预判状态变更很有价值。但未说明平票处理、调用是否可逆或失败时的行为，存在少量信息缺口。
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?
三句话各司其职：第一句说明核心用途，第二句说明调用条件，第三句说明副作用。没有任何冗余文字，关键信息前置，结构紧凑高效。
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?
对于单参数且无注解的工具，描述已覆盖用途、调用条件、调用者权限和主要游戏状态影响，搭配 100% 的参数 schema 覆盖，整体足够支持代理正确调用。缺失点在于平票或无效轮次等失败场景的处理方式，以及无输出 schema 时未提及返回值信息，但考虑到兄弟工具 get_round_status 承担状态查询职责，此为轻微缺口。
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 描述覆盖率为100%，roomId 已在 schema 中被解释为“房间 ID 号”，描述本身没有为参数增加任何超出 schema 的语义信息，因此按高覆盖率基准评为3分。
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?
描述使用具体动词“结算”和资源“当前轮次”，并说明目的是“推进游戏”，让代理清楚这是一个推进游戏状态的行动型工具。它与 get_round_status（只读）和 start_game（开始新局）在语义上可区分，但没有显式点名任何兄弟工具来划清边界，因此未达到5分。
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?
描述明确给出调用条件：“任何人都可以”以及“经过足够的区块后”，这在权限和时间维度上都是可操作的指导，帮助代理判断何时能安全调用。但未说明何时不应调用（如轮次已结算或票数平局时）也未列出替代工具，缺少排除性指引。
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.