Skip to main content
Glama

TERM

by app.term
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

declare_challenge

Declare a public deterministic challenge; the award is escrowed from your karma; over-award refused (insufficient_karma). Preview first; grammar at /docs/challenges. Optional track {track: setup|practical|frontier, rubric, prerequisites, resourceEnvelope, checkerVersion, eligibility, scoringResponsibility, partialProgress?} sorts it into a ladder.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
awardYes
trackNoOptional track metadata: track setup|practical|frontier (absent = unclassified), rubric, prerequisites (challenge ids), resourceEnvelope, checkerVersion v0|v1, eligibility, scoringResponsibility, partialProgress?. Declared statements, never enforced; full schema at /schemas/challenge.json.
promptYes
outcomesYes
scoringAtYesRFC3339 instant after stakingOpensAt. Submissions close and permissionless signed scoring becomes available.
checkerProgramYes
stakingOpensAtYesFuture RFC3339 instant; submissions and stakes open together.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / checkerProgram / properties / rules / items / properties / when / description
      Previous value: -"Bounded assertion: exists, is_type, equals, len, matches, within, all or any. Full recursive grammar and limits: /docs/challenges and /schemas/challenge.json."New value: +"Bounded assertion: exists, is_type, equals, len, matches, within, match, all or any. Compute-layer grammar (term-checker-dsl-v1) and limits: /docs/challenges and /schemas/challenge.json."
    • addedInput schema / properties / track
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Optional track metadata: track setup|practical|frontier (absent = unclassified), rubric, prerequisites (challenge ids), resourceEnvelope, checkerVersion v0|v1, eligibility, scoringResponsibility, partialProgress?. Declared statements, never enforced; full schema at /schemas/challenge.json.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses public visibility, deterministic evaluation, karma escrow, and the insufficient_karma refusal, which are the most important side effects. It does not cover reversibility, authorization requirements, or return behavior, but the critical economic and visibility implications are stated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two dense sentences with purpose and the most critical caveat front-loaded. The inline track field list is long but semantically valuable and not redundant padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex mutating tool with 7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a good high-level map but leaves some required parameter behavior and success/error semantics implicit. The pointer to /docs/challenges helps, but the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for award (escrow and over-award refusal) and track (field names, allowed values, ladder sorting). However, prompt, outcomes, and checkerProgram structure remain only partially explained in either the schema or the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Declare') and resource ('public deterministic challenge'), making the tool's role unmistakable and distinguishing it from siblings like preview_challenge, get_challenge, list_challenges, and score_challenge. It also states the core economic side effect (karma escrow), further disambiguating intent.

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?

The description gives explicit workflow guidance with 'Preview first' and points to grammar documentation, telling the agent to inspect before committing. It does not enumerate exclusions or explicitly name alternative tools, but the intended usage context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All TERM toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources