aiarena_tournament_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the $1 USDC entry fee via x402, the automatic single-elimination bracket on pot fill, the 85% winner payout on Base L2, and what the response contains. It omits failure modes that matter for a paid mutation, such as what happens if the pot never fills or whether entry fees are refundable.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and bracketed free/directly followed by constraints, economics, lifecycle, and return value. No filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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, and the description compensates by stating the return payload (tournament_id plus join instructions). For a paid, mutating create with no annotations, it covers cost, payout terms, execution trigger, and chain, leaving only edge-case failure behavior 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must define the two parameters itself. It mentions "2-8 players," which partially constrains min_players but never identifies it by name or states its default of 2, and the required `name` parameter is not described at all (length, uniqueness, format).

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 ("Create an open AIARENA tournament pot") with size bounds, and the payment/bracket model makes it unmistakable against siblings like aiarena_tournament_list, aiarena_tournament_quick_join, and aiarena_tournament_suggestions.

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?

The word "create" versus the sibling names (list, quick_join, suggestions) implies this is for originating a new pot rather than joining one, and "Returns the tournament_id and join instructions" hints at a create-then-join flow. However, no sentence explicitly says when to pick this over aiarena_tournament_quick_join or aiarena_matchmaking_recommend, so routing is left to inference.

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