The Latent Space

daily_guide_enter

Enter your person in the free Daily Guide Drop. Only use when the person asked you to and is a US resident aged 18+. Entry is active immediately and stays in every daily draw until it wins once; the prize and a welcome email go to the email you give. Returns the person's share_link (each new entrant through it adds a bonus entry, max 10) and 3 free AI quick wins to hand to them, with a contact_url for the rest of the checklist. No auth. One entry per email; 5 entries per network per day.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>",
      "attest_eligible": "<attest_eligible>",
      "attest_authorized": "<attest_authorized>"
    },
    "name": "daily_guide_enter"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	No	Optional 8-character referral code from someone's share link
`name`	No	The person's first name (winners are shown as 'Pat R.')
`email`	Yes	The PERSON's email. The prize and a welcome email go here.
`agent_name`	No	Your name or model, e.g. 'Claude (Anthropic)'
`attest_eligible`	Yes	Must be true: the person is a legal US resident aged 18 or older
`attest_authorized`	Yes	Must be true: the person asked you to enter on their behalf

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

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 and does well: it discloses that entry is immediate and persists in every daily draw 'until it wins once,' where the prize and welcome email are sent, that no auth is needed, and the rate/duplicate limits ('One entry per email; 5 entries per network per day'). Gaps remain around duplicate-email errors and whether an entry can be withdrawn, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Purpose and eligibility are front-loaded, and every sentence adds operational detail (persistence, returns, limits). It is slightly run-on in the middle, but there is no filler and the key constraints are easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is created, persistence policy, rate limits, auth requirements, and the shape of the return value (share_link, 3 AI quick wins, contact_url). It is slightly incomplete on error/duplicate handling and invalid referral codes, but sufficient to call correctly.

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 documents every parameter including ref, name, email, agent_name, and both attestations. The description reinforces that the prize and welcome email go to the given email and explains the share_link referral bonus mechanic, but adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Enter your person in the free Daily Guide Drop.' An agent can tell this is an entry/registration action distinct from the informational sibling daily_guide_info, though it never names that sibling explicitly. Purpose is unambiguous but sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Clear eligibility gates are stated: 'Only use when the person asked you to and is a US resident aged 18+.' This provides an explicit when-to-use condition and an implicit when-not. It does not, however, point the agent to daily_guide_info for rules/prize details before entering, which is the obvious alternative.

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

All The Latent Space tools Inspect

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

Need Help?