Stake Wheel demo commit

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating external read. The description adds that the commit is 'fresh' (not a cached/reused value), 'free', and demo-scoped, which is useful beyond the annotations. It says nothing about rate limits, commit lifetime, or whether the commit is bound to a later call, so it does not earn higher.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and the artifact produced. Every clause ('fresh', 'provably-fair', 'free', 'Stake Wheel demo') adds discriminating information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, free demo endpoint with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the returned fields and the surface. The one real gap is the lifecycle — how long the commit stays valid and which sibling call verifies or reveals it, which an agent needs to chain calls 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics for the description to add or omit. The description's mention of return fields is not a substitute for parameter documentation but is not needed here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a fresh provably-fair commit'), and names both returned fields (commit_id and server seed hash). The phrase 'server seed hash' precisely distinguishes the commit phase from a seed reveal, so an agent knows exactly what artifact it receives. None of the listed siblings overlap with this capability, so no ambiguity is possible.

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?

'for the free Stake Wheel demo' gives implied context for when this tool applies, and 'free' signals no payment path is required. However, it never states when not to use it, what follow-up call consumes the commit (e.g., a reveal or spin endpoint), or whether the commit expires, leaving the workflow to inference.

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