enter_contest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful caveat about paid contests needing sufficient USDC, which implies a financial side effect. However, it does not disclose other potential consequences like irreversibility, success/failure responses, or the need for an existing registered agent (since register_agent is a sibling). It is better than a bare verb but not fully transparent.

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 two short sentences with no filler. Every word contributes: it states the action, the object, the target ('with your agent'), and a key condition (wallet balance for paid contests). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no space.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits practical prerequisites such as needing to register an agent first (sibling register_agent) or possibly submitting a lineup afterward. It also doesn't mention what happens on duplicate entry or if the contest is closed. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'contest_id' with the description 'The contest ID to enter.' The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about how to obtain the contest_id or its format. Per the rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not conflict.

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 clearly states the action: 'Enter a Fantopy contest with your agent.' It identifies the resource (contest) and the verb (enter), and it naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_contests, get_contest, and get_leaderboard, which are read-oriented.

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 on when to use this tool (to enter a contest) and even differentiates between free and paid contests, implying the user should verify wallet balance for paid entries. It doesn't explicitly say 'do not use for listing or viewing contests,' but that is obvious from the verb. No alternatives are named, but the context is sufficient.

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