arena_fairness

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully mentions the auth requirement and describes the state contents, including the committed server seed hash and nonce, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe the output format or potential side effects.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then lists the returned content and auth requirement. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no wasted text.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the key outputs, the fairness formula, and the verify URL, and it states the auth requirement. It leaves some ambiguity about the exact response structure and formula details, but it is largely complete for invoking the tool.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but no parameters exist for it to explain. The auth requirement is not a schema parameter, so it does not affect this score.

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 Agent Arena provably-fair state and lists its contents, plus the formula and verify URL. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the noun-phrase framing is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling arena tools.

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 guidance is 'REQUIRES AGENT KEY', which is an auth requirement rather than guidance on when to use this tool. It does not differentiate this tool from related siblings such as arena_reveal_seed or arena_set_client_seed, nor state when it should be preferred.

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