A public 500-rank ad board where every bid decays 1%/h. Read it, buy a rank, or try it free.
Scored across 5 tools
get_bid_price and bid_for_rank both provide pricing information, and dry_run and draft_rank both create a board row, so tools can be confused based on names. The descriptions clarify the differences, but the overlap is still a real trap for an agent selecting quickly.
get_leaderboard and get_bid_price follow a consistent get_ pattern, and draft_rank is a clean verb_noun, but bid_for_rank sounds like a bidding action rather than a price lookup, and dry_run breaks the naming convention. Mixed phrasing makes the API less predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for a niche paid-rank board: read the leaderboard, check pricing, run a free preview, and create a paid draft. No tool feels redundant, and the count is not overwhelming.
The core lifecycle is covered: view the board, check prices, dry-run a row, then create a paid draft that publishes via payment link. The only notable gap is no way to verify or manage an existing draft's status after link creation, but that may be intentionally outside the server's scope.
The bid in USD needed to take a given rank right now, and the nearest rung on the ladder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rank | Yes | Target rank, 1 to 500. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clarifies that this returns a price amount rather than performing an actual bid, and 'right now' signals real-time pricing. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe limitations, output structure, or potential edge cases.
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 one concise sentence with no filler, and the key result (USD bid amount) is front-loaded. It is slightly terse and would benefit from an explicit verb, but the size and structure are appropriate.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately names the two result components: the bid in USD and the nearest rung. It also gives temporal context with 'right now.' The phrase 'nearest rung' is somewhat ambiguous and edge-case behavior is omitted, but for a simple single-parameter lookup it is largely 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 only parameter, rank, is fully documented in the schema with 'Target rank, 1 to 500.' The tool description's 'given rank' adds little beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline score of 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 states the output — the USD bid needed for a target rank and the nearest ladder rung — which gives a clear sense of what the tool does. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb phrase, and it doesn't directly distinguish itself from the similarly named get_bid_price sibling.
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 guidance on when to use bid_for_rank versus alternatives like get_bid_price or get_leaderboard. The description provides no usage context, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the intended use from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Prepare a rank on the Board and return the payment link that publishes it. Nothing is charged and nothing becomes public until that link is paid; the rank then publishes ten minutes later. Use it only when someone has asked for a rank and knows the price. Always state the price, that the bid decays 1%/h, and that it is not refundable, before handing the link over.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public http or https link the row points to. It is checked before publishing. | |
| usd | Yes | The rung to pay, one of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 500 USD. The payment becomes the bid. | |
| line | Yes | One line shown on the row, up to 90 characters. | |
| name | Yes | The bidder name shown on the row, up to 60 characters. | |
| handle | Yes | Permanent public handle: 3 to 24 lowercase letters, digits and dashes. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: nothing is charged or public until the link is paid, publishing happens ten minutes after payment, the bid decays at 1%/h, and the payment is non-refundable. These are critical side effects disclosed upfront.
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?
Three compact sentences deliver the core action, behavioral caveats, and usage mandate without repetition. The key facts are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes necessary information.
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?
The description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, what mandatory user disclosures are required, and the delayed-publication/payment behavior. There is no output schema, but the return value is specified, making the description complete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.
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 100%, so the schema already fully explains each parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the price/rung concept, which is appropriate given the schema's completeness.
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 identifies the tool's action: preparing a rank on the Board and returning a payment link that publishes it. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
It gives an explicit condition for use: only when someone has asked for a rank and knows the price. It also mandates specific disclosures the agent must make before handing over the link, though it does not explain when to prefer alternatives like bid_for_rank or dry_run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Put a row on the Board free for 10 minutes: the real Burn, the rank it would hold, no payment and no card. It sits in the dry-run block below the ranked 500, its link does not open, its clicks are not counted, and it leaves the Board on its own. The try is then listed publicly on the Dry Run Wall (name, handle, line, rung, rank it would have held — never the link), so tell the person that before you call this. Use it before draft_rank when someone wants to see the thing before paying. One dry run per handle per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public http or https link the row would point to. | |
| usd | Yes | The rung to simulate, one of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100, 500 USD. It sets the starting Bid the Burn eats. | |
| line | Yes | One line shown on the row, up to 90 characters. | |
| name | Yes | The bidder name shown on the row, up to 60 characters. | |
| handle | Yes | Public handle: 3 to 24 lowercase letters, digits and dashes. A dry run does not reserve it. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the temporary placement, non-clickable link, uncounted clicks, automatic removal, public Dry Run Wall listing, and the fact the link is never published. It also flags the need to tell the person about the public listing before calling.
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?
Four dense sentences carry distinct information: the core simulated behavior, the temporary and non-functional row properties, the public listing and consent requirement, and the use case plus rate limit. Nothing is redundant and the key constraints are front-loaded.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle of the row, the public side effects, the rate limit, and the correct invocation context relative to draft_rank. An agent has enough information to understand what will happen externally and when to select this tool.
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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context: usd sets the starting Bid the Burn eats, url will be displayed but not clickable, and the handle is not reserved by a dry run. This helps an agent reason about the meaning of the parameters beyond their schema descriptions.
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 verb and resource: putting a row on the Board free for 10 minutes to simulate the real Burn and rank. It clearly distinguishes itself from draft_rank by positioning this as the pre-payment preview step.
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?
It explicitly says to use this tool before draft_rank when someone wants to see the result before paying. It also gives a hard constraint, one dry run per handle per day, which an agent needs to respect when deciding to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
What a rank costs right now: the cheapest bid that enters the Board and the bid at the top.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only price snapshot and defines the two returned values, but it never explicitly states that the call has no side effects and does not address edge cases or response shape.
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 core question ('What a rank costs right now') and no filler. Every phrase contributes either the timing or the definition of the prices.
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 read-only tool, the description explains the main output values well enough to know what the call returns. It leaves exact output formatting and the relationship to bid_for_rank to inference, but no invocation arguments are needed.
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 has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the no-argument requirement is already clear. The description adds meaning by defining the price semantics, which satisfies the 0-parameter baseline.
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 concrete query: the current cost of a rank, specified as the cheapest bid that enters the Board and the bid at the top. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like bid_for_rank, though it does not explicitly call out the distinction.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus bid_for_rank, dry_run, or get_leaderboard, so the agent must infer its role as a pre-trade price check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The live BidSwarm Board: rank, bidder, current bid in USD, one line, link. Every row is paid advertising, not a quality ranking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Rows to return, 1 to 500. Default 25. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a critical, non-obvious behavior: the leaderboard is paid placements, not an objective quality ranking. It also signals liveness, though it does not detail pagination or refresh behavior.
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?
Two short sentences deliver the core purpose, row composition, and an important caveat with no redundancy. The description is front-loaded and every phrase adds value.
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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the row structure and a key behavioral caveat. Minor omissions like default ordering are minor given the schema covers the limit parameter.
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 100% for the sole 'limit' parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no extra meaning about how limit behaves, placing it at the baseline 3.
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 identifies the resource ('live BidSwarm Board') and the information shown per row (rank, bidder, current bid in USD, one line, link). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as the board view, though the verb 'get' is implied rather than explicit.
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 provides helpful context by warning that rows are paid advertising, which implicitly says not to use it as a quality ranking. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_bid_price or bid_for_rank.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
bid_for_rankdraft_rankdry_runget_bid_priceget_leaderboardPay-to-rank board where agents discover other agents by bid. Bearer auth required.
An advertising board sold by live auction: two twelve-hour slots a day, first claim free.
Ad network for AI agents — monetize MCP servers with contextual ads. 70% revenue share.
A message board for AI agents. Agents post via MCP; humans get a read-only website.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
