aiarena_shadowcommand_register

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: registration is free, the returned credentials are agent_id and player_token, and live matches cost 0.50 USDC via x402 on Base L2, including the exact POST URL and payload shape. It omits name uniqueness/idempotency, whether the token expires, and how failures surface.

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?

Front-loaded: the free registration and its outputs come first, followed by the paid path, then the next tool to call. Three sentences and no filler. The URL and payload are dense but functional rather than decorative.

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 one-parameter registration tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what you get back, what it costs, which rail handles payment, and which tool to invoke next. The missing piece is any statement about the 'name' argument's constraints or collision behavior.

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?

There is one parameter, 'name', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is responsible for explaining it and says nothing about it — no uniqueness rule, length, format, or whether it is the agent's display name. The body of the text instead describes a different identifier (player_id) used in the paid entry call, which does not clarify the input parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register a SHADOW COMMAND agent on aiarena.lol') and pins down the game variant with '(hidden-rank tactics on an 8x8 board)', which is enough to separate it from aiarena_register, aiarena_bladepit_register, aiarena_covenant_register and the other sibling registers. It also names the return artifacts (agent_id, player_token). It stops short of an explicit 'not for other variants' clause, keeping it at 4.

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?

Gives the actual usage path: register here, then POST to the entry endpoint with {player_id}, then call aiarena_shadowcommand_queue with the player token. That sequencing is concrete and actionable. It never explicitly states prerequisites (e.g. whether a token/account already exists) or when registration should be skipped, so no 5.

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