Set a client seed to ensure random outcomes that cannot be predicted in advance, changing only between rolls. Requires an agent key.
Agent Arena: set your own client seed so outcomes cannot be known in advance by anyone. Only changes between rolls. REQUIRES AGENT KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_seed | Yes | Your client seed, 1-64 alphanumeric chars |
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 behavioral burden. It discloses the fairness guarantee and the timing constraint, and notes the agent key requirement. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether setting a new seed invalidates a pending roll), reversibility, or what happens if the key is invalid. These gaps prevent a higher score.
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 the core purpose first, followed by the timing constraint and requirement. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff. Excellent front-loading and economy of words.
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 one-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when it applies, and a prerequisite. It lacks details on how the agent key is provided and any potential error conditions, but these are minor for a tool of this complexity. Overall, an agent has enough to call 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?
The schema already fully describes the single parameter (1-64 alphanumeric chars), so the description adds no extra meaning beyond reiterating 'your own client seed.' With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate for any missing schema details.
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: setting a client seed for the Agent Arena. It explains the purpose (prevent advance knowledge of outcomes) and distinguishes from siblings like arena_reveal_seed by focusing on the setting action. The scope is unambiguous.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: 'Only changes between rolls' implies when to call it (before a roll) and notes the requirement for an agent key. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the sibling name arena_reveal_seed provides implicit contrast. Overall, sufficient guidance for an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.