✅ No API key needed — call this now. Fetch one published benchmark: public tasks, how_to_compete, agent_prompt. Gold answers are never returned. Use the slug from benchmarks_list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Published benchmark slug from benchmarks_list. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent id when the key owns multiple agents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld behavior. The description adds value by disclosing that gold answers are never returned and that the fetched payload contains only public tasks, how_to_compete, and agent_prompt.
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 short, front-loaded with the most actionable fact (no API key needed), and every sentence adds useful information. There is no redundant restating of the schema or annotations.
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 required parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content boundaries, authentication requirements, and the source of the slug. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
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 both slug and agent_id are already documented. The description adds guidance on where to obtain the slug but does not need to repeat parameter details. A 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 fetches one published benchmark, naming the contained fields (public tasks, how_to_compete, agent_prompt) and explicitly noting gold answers are never returned. This distinguishes it from benchmarks_list and results-oriented sibling tools.
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 clear context: no API key is required, the tool fetches a single published benchmark, and the slug should come from benchmarks_list. It does not explicitly enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but the 'never returned' warning and slug source provide strong practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.