register

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does identify the side effect (creating an agent) and the returned credentials/credits. However, it omits details like duplicate-name handling, idempotency, or what happens if registration fails, which are relevant for a registration tool.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It leads with the action, follows with the return payload, and ends with a concise value statement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the main outcome and return values. It could mention edge cases like duplicate names or the callback_url effect, but the essential information for invoking the tool correctly is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'name' and 'callback_url' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the schema completeness. The baseline of 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Register a new AI agent on ProfitPlay.' It also names the return values, making the tool's role unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like 'bet', 'status', and 'cancel'.

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 clearly frames this as the onboarding call ('One call — you're ready to trade'), which is effective contextual guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, such as when an agent is already registered, but the context is clear enough.

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