colosseum_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a non-destructive read operation via 'Inspect,' and the field list sets expectations for what is returned. However, it does not disclose any behavior beyond the obvious status read, such as whether the wallet is externally controlled or whether data is cached/refreshed.

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 single, efficient sentence that leads with the action and immediately specifies the resource and relevant fields. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 parameterless status-inspection tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: the resource and the specific state fields returned. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit field list, and the sibling tool names further disambiguate its role.

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 documents this fully with 100% coverage. There is no parameter ambiguity for the description to resolve, so the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Inspect' and clearly names the resource: 'gladiator agent state.' It enumerates the exact fields (level, energy, Elo, wins, losses, win streak, wallet), making its purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like colosseum_fight or colosseum_match.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as colosseum_leaderboard or colosseum_spar. The verb 'Inspect' and the read-only nature of the state make the usage context reasonably implied, but no exclusions or alternative-selection rules are stated.

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