get_capabilities

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description's contribution is the 'authoritative' qualifier, signalling the values are canonical rather than stale, plus a content inventory; it does not disclose freshness, caching, or on-chain vs off-chain sourcing, which for an openWorld hint would be useful.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb, authority claim, then a tight list of the returned content categories. Nothing is repeated from annotations or schema, and nothing extraneous is present.

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?

A zero-param, output-schema-backed tool with full annotation coverage needs little more than a statement of what it returns, which the description supplies. The one omission is any hint about when in the agent workflow to call it relative to the purchase/referral tools.

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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing an agent must interpret and there is no semantic gap to fill. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly spends no words on nonexistent arguments.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus a concrete inventory of the resource's contents: game config, USDC pricing, gas, workflow, payout, and safety details. An agent knows this is the discovery/config tool rather than a data-fetch tool like get_stats or get_draw_history. It stops short of naming itself against any sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The word 'authoritative' and the enumerated contents imply this is the canonical first-call/config lookup (e.g., before prepare_ticket_purchase to learn price and gas), but the agent must infer that routing on its own.

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