[wavefunction — demand-side agent/collective discovery] Collapse the user's wavefunction into an actionable commitment, weighted by stake.
[wavefunction — demand-side agent/collective discovery] Collapse the user's wavefunction into an actionable commitment, weighted by stake.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | ||
| stake_amount | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.13v0.1.12v0.1.11Input schema / properties / stake_amount / titleAdded value: +"Stake Amount"Input schema / properties / user_id / titleAdded value: +"User Id"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"collapseArguments"v0.1.9Input schema / properties / stake_amount / titleRemoved value: -"Stake Amount"Input schema / properties / user_id / titleRemoved value: -"User Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"collapseArguments"Input schema / properties / stake_amount / titleAdded value: +"Stake Amount"Input schema / properties / user_id / titleAdded value: +"User Id"Input schema / titleAdded value: +"collapseArguments"Input schema / properties / stake_amount / titleRemoved value: -"Stake Amount"Input schema / properties / user_id / titleRemoved value: -"User Id"Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"collapseArguments"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral effects. It mentions 'actionable commitment' but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to the state.
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 short and front-loaded, but the metaphorical language reduces clarity. It could be more concise while still being clear.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and an abstract description, the tool is incomplete. An agent lacks enough information to decide when to invoke or how to use it correctly.
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 0%, yet the description only mentions 'stake' implicitly. It does not explain the role of 'stake_amount' or 'user_id' beyond their names. No format, constraints, or usage context is added.
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 a quantum metaphor ('collapse wavefunction') and says 'actionable commitment, weighted by stake' but does not state concrete actions or outcomes. It is vague and relies on jargon, making it unclear what the tool actually does compared to siblings like wavefunction__describe_agent.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria for using collapse over intake or other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.