coinduel_rules

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose substantial domain behavior: entry cost (0.50 USDC daily x402), free rounds, 15-second duration, calls closing at 7 seconds, median Coinbase+Kraken pricing, 95% Wilson-bound ranking, 500 USD pot cap, and midnight America/Phoenix payouts. What it omits is the tool's own contract — that it takes no inputs, causes no side effects, and returns a static constants payload rather than live state.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the '[FREE]' cost signal and the resource name before the constant list. It is dense but every clause is a distinct fact the caller would otherwise have to ask for; no filler wording.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema reference endpoint, the description supplies enough substance (cost, timing, oracle, ranking method, payout schedule) that an agent knows what it will learn. The one gap is the absence of any statement about return format or whether the constants are static or refreshed.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The enumerated constants serve as a preview of the returned data rather than parameter documentation, which is the right allocation of space 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 opens with a specific noun-verb framing ('Coin Duel rules and constants') that tells the agent exactly what the tool returns, and the enumerated constants confirm it is a static reference endpoint. It is distinguishable from siblings like coinduel_leaderboard and coinduel_enter_info, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: the '[FREE]' tag signals no cost barrier and 'rules and constants' suggests reading before entering a duel via coinduel_enter_info, but no when-to-use condition, prerequisite, or exclusion is stated. The agent must infer the workflow position from context.

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