search_benchmarksFind benchmarks in the aggregate by (partial) name. Returns model coverage, difficulty on the Elo scale, and the benchmark page URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-25, default 10). | |
| query | Yes | Benchmark name fragment, e.g. "swe-bench" or "arena". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. It states the tool returns three fields and searches 'by (partial) name', but does not disclose aggregation semantics, sort order, case sensitivity, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action and returns. It is concise but could be slightly improved by structuring the return values as a bullet list.
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 simple search tool with 2 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks clarity on what 'in the aggregate' means and does not specify matching behavior (e.g., case sensitivity, fuzzy vs exact).
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?
Since schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond stating 'by (partial) name', which repeats the query parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool finds benchmarks by partial name and lists the return fields (model coverage, Elo difficulty, URL). It distinguishes from siblings like get_benchmark and search_models, but could explicitly contrast with exact-match retrieval.
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 description implies usage for searching benchmarks by name fragment, but does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as get_benchmark for exact matches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a unique purpose: general info, model comparison, benchmark details, leaderboard, model details, prediction game, and two search tools. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., about_the_aggregate, compare_models, get_benchmark). No deviations.
8 tools is an appropriate number for a benchmark aggregation server, covering all necessary functionality without being excessive or sparse.
The tool set covers all major operations for the domain: information, comparison, leaderboard, search, and prediction. No obvious gaps for a read-only aggregate service.