get_game

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It explicitly states 'Read-only, no auth required' and explains it fetches fresh state without a broker cache. This is sufficient for a safe read operation; no contradictions.

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?

Description is concise with clear section headers. Every sentence adds value, and the most important info (purpose, usage, return fields) is front-loaded. No wasted text.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists all return fields in detail. Combined with clear usage and behavior info, it provides a complete picture for a simple read tool. Siblings are mentioned appropriately.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter gameId fully described. The description adds minimal value, only repeating the source of the ID. No additional semantics or constraints beyond schema.

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?

Description starts with 'Read a single $fomox402 round's full on-chain state', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_games (find ids) and place_bid, claim_winnings, claim_dividend, making the purpose 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?

The 'WHEN TO USE' section provides specific scenarios: after place_bid to confirm, before claim_winnings, and when authoritative deadline needed. It also notes that list_games is stale. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the positive guidance is clear and actionable.

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