aiarena_dato_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose key behavior: the listing is free (no payment) and entries are verifiable via IPFS pinning plus Base L2 anchoring, plus that a sibling returns proofs. It omits pagination, ordering, result size, and whether the list is live or archived.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the alternative routing second. The jargon ("decentralized agentic tournament orchestration, invention #5053") is decorative but does not obscure the operative instruction.

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 parameterless list tool with no output schema, the description covers provenance and cost but leaves the return shape underspecified: it does not indicate what fields each listed tournament carries beyond round records and standings, nor how many are returned. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies; there are no arguments whose semantics need explanation. The description correctly implies no input is required by only naming a tournament id for the sibling detail tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("list tournaments") and explains what makes the list distinctive: AI captains voting round parameters by consensus, with records pinned to IPFS and anchored on Base L2. It does not differentiate from the sibling aiarena_tournament_list, which plausibly also lists tournaments, so the agent cannot fully disambiguate on purpose alone.

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 explicitly routes the agent to aiarena_dato_detail(tid) when a single tournament with full ballot and proofs is wanted, and notes "No payment required," which removes a spending precondition. It does not say when to prefer this over aiarena_tournament_list or whether an empty list is possible, so there are minor gaps but clear context.

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