alloy_live

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose the free/no-payment posture and enumerates the returned state (material, turn, per-side deformation/heat/fatigue/energy/efficiency, trash talk). It does not state behavior when no live match exists (empty result vs error) or any rate/refresh constraints on a real-time endpoint.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the cost tag and the tool's purpose, then the return payload and the spectate link. Every clause carries information, though the trailing spectate URL is marginally decorative for an agent.

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 single optional-parameter tool with no output schema, listing the return fields is the right compensation and is done well. The only meaningful gap is the undefined behavior in the no-live-match case, which matters for a status endpoint.

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 optional parameter (mid) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description partially compensates by saying it selects "one by match id". It never states the id format or where match ids are obtained, so the added meaning is partial.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Live status of ALLOY, the AIARENA material-stress duel (game 19)") and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it is querying. It distinguishes itself from sibling live tools (aiarena_cipherlock_live, aiarena_beamclash_live, covenant_live) only implicitly by naming the game rather than by explicitly routing the agent away.

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?

"Returns the current live match (or one by match id)" implies the two usage modes, and the "[FREE] ... no payment required" note signals this is an unauthenticated read. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools such as aiarena_register/queue or the other *_live tools, nor what to do if no match is running.

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