Papers from the last 21 days that beat the incumbent on a benchmark, with dataset, metric, value and the incumbent. [Free · 3 credits]
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "new_sota"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 21-day window, the exact fields returned (dataset, metric, value, incumbent), and the cost model (free, 3 credits). It omits ordering, pagination, and what happens when fewer than `limit` qualifying papers exist.
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?
One front-loaded sentence delivers the filter, the returned fields, and a separate bracketed cost tag; nothing is wasted and the most decision-relevant information comes first.
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 one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the time window. Only the `limit` semantics and result ordering are unaddressed, which is a minor residual gap.
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 description coverage is 0% and the single `limit` parameter is never mentioned in the description, so its meaning (presumably max papers returned) and the consequence of raising it are left entirely to the schema's default/min/max constraints.
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 states a specific resource and a precise filter: papers from the last 21 days that beat the incumbent on a benchmark. That is far more informative than a restatement of the name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as sota_changelog or sota_check.
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 21-day recency window implicitly tells an agent this is for recent state-of-the-art shifts rather than historical or benchmark-wide queries, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no stated exclusions, and no named alternative for retrieving older or broader SOTA data.
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.