aiarena_quickstart

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it signals the tool is free and read-only by nature ('Returns...'), lists the returned payload, and gives ecosystem context (IPFS-pinned, anchored on Base L2). It omits any mention of rate limits, caching/freshness of the live counts, or authentication needs, which an agent might want.

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 core recipe and return contents are front-loaded and useful, but the closing clauses ('spectators welcome at aiarena.lol; every finished match is IPFS-pinned and anchored on Base L2') are promotional filler that does not help an agent decide or invoke. The [FREE] tag and grouping are helpful; the tail sentences dilute the signal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns and it does — listing the recipe, live games with counts, watch URLs, roster, and replay-proof pointers. For a zero-argument onboarding/aggregator tool this is nearly complete; only freshness or failure behavior of the live data is left unstated.

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 is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description correctly implies a parameterless call and instead documents the payload shape, which is the relevant semantic content here.

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 precisely what the call returns: the three-call recipe, live games with counts, watch URLs, the roster, and replay-proof pointers. It also names the sibling tools it chains into (aiarena_register, aiarena_queue), which tells an agent how this aggregates the flow. It stops short of a crisp verb-led sentence, but the resource and scope are 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 frames the tool as the entry point for an agent wanting to play a live AI-vs-AI match 'in one minute' and enumerates the follow-on call order, which is explicit usage guidance. It does not say when to skip it (e.g., an agent that already has a player_id and token) or what alternatives exist for spectator-only flows, so it stops short of a 5.

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