Re-judge a recorded factor trial against its family after importing additional trials to apply family-wise error correction, optionally at a different alpha.
Re-judge an already-recorded trial against its family, optionally at a different alpha. Use after importing more trials or to ask 'how much better would this need to be'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fp | Yes | Value fingerprint returned by evaluate. | |
| alpha | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never states whether re-judging is a read-only computation or whether a new verdict is persisted to the ledger, nor does it describe error behavior when the fingerprint is stale or unknown. For an operation whose name suggests a decision gate, this ambiguity about side effects is a real gap.
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 tight sentences: purpose first, then usage context. No filler, and the core action 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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only one of two parameters documented, the description should do more — notably explain what the re-judged result contains and whether state changes. It covers purpose and timing adequately but leaves behavioral completeness thin.
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 coverage is 50%: 'fp' is documented in the schema as the fingerprint from evaluate, but 'alpha' has only numeric bounds and a default. The description partially compensates by clarifying that alpha is optional and re-sets the significance threshold ('optionally at a different alpha'), adding meaning beyond the schema.
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 gives a specific verb ('Re-judge') and resource ('an already-recorded trial against its family'), which is far more informative than the opaque name 'gate'. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling 'evaluate' by specifying that the trial is already recorded, but never names or contrasts the siblings explicitly.
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 gives concrete triggering conditions: 'after importing more trials' and 'to ask how much better would this need to be'. That is clear when-to-use guidance, though it offers no when-not-to-use or explicit pointer to 'evaluate' vs 'gate'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.