Retrieve available Maya Long Count reward choices, including unavailable types and the selected baktun, so civilizations can plan their next pick.
Pending Maya Long Count rewards, including unavailable types and the baktun when chosen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that unavailable types are included and that baktun appears when chosen, which is useful return-content context, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what permissions or state changes are involved.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter options tool, though it is a fragment rather than a complete sentence.
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 query tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned and when to use it. It partially describes the returned set (pending rewards, unavailable types, baktun when chosen), but it leaves the tool's action and usage context implicit, so it is only partially complete.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed because there are no inputs.
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 names a specific resource ('Maya Long Count rewards') and notes contents (unavailable types, baktun when chosen), but it is a noun phrase with no verb such as list/get and does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling choose_maya_bonus. An agent can infer it is an options-query tool, but the action is not stated.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit alternative. The presence of choose_maya_bonus as a sibling implies this tool should be consulted before choosing a reward, but the description never says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.