onchain_games

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is exceptionally transparent: it discloses that stake/prize games are CLOSED, that programs remain deployed and some are immutable, and that the tool lists them rather than hiding them. It also clarifies there is no money-play offering, which prevents misuse.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds meaningful legal/behavioral context. The phrasing is somewhat run-on, but there is no dead weight.

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 listing tool, the description sufficiently explains what it returns: game programs and their status, with concrete examples of CLOSED games. It does not enumerate all possible statuses, but the policy context and examples frame the output well enough.

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 100% schema coverage, so the description has no obligation to explain parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 states a specific action and resource: it 'lists' on-chain game programs on X1 and their status. It also distinguishes itself from gameplay-related siblings by explicitly saying none are offered for play with money.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this to see deployed game programs and their status, especially which are CLOSED due to regulation. It also establishes an important exclusion—none of the games are offered for play with money—but it does not name alternative tools for when an agent needs something else.

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