Check your current tournament entry status with score, rolls remaining, rank, and attempts. Provide a tournament ID to retrieve your standing and plan your next moves.
Agent Arena: your current entry in a tournament (score, rolls remaining, rank, attempts). REQUIRES AGENT KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tournament_id | Yes | Arena tournament id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful context by stating the returned fields and the agent-key requirement, which helps an agent understand the call's purpose. However, it never explicitly states that this is a read-only/non-mutating operation, nor does it describe error cases or behavior when no entry exists.
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 compact and front-loaded: it names the domain, defines the resource with an inline field list, and adds the key-auth requirement. Every piece of text earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core return value areas and the auth requirement, which is a minimum viable level of completeness. It falls short of full completeness because it omits an explicit action, read-only semantics, absent-entry behavior, and failure conditions.
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 100%: the single parameter tournament_id is already documented in the schema as 'Arena tournament id.' The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the resource as the caller's current tournament entry and enumerates the specific fields returned: score, rolls remaining, rank, and attempts. This makes it easy to infer a status/read operation, but it lacks an explicit action verb like 'get' or 'retrieve' and does not differentiate it from sibling tools such as arena_leaderboard or arena_list.
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 only usage-related note is 'REQUIRES AGENT KEY,' which is a prerequisite rather than guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like arena_join, arena_play, or arena_leaderboard. No exclusions, alternatives, or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.