BidSwarm

draft_rank

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All BidSwarm tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?