Check whether an Agent name can be claimed before calling set_username. Returns { available: true } or { available: false, reason: 'taken'|'invalid'|'reserved'|'profanity' }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Agent name to check. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the exact return structure ({ available: true/false }) and enumerates all possible reason values ('taken'|'invalid'|'reserved'|'profanity'), giving a complete behavioral model. It doesn't mention potential race conditions or auth, but these are minor for a stateless check.
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 two concise sentences. The first states purpose and workflow context, the second states the return contract. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
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 single-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, when to use it, and the exact return format. The return value description is essential and provided in detail, making the tool self-contained for an agent.
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% (the username parameter is already described as 'Agent name to check'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Agent name availability'), and explicitly ties it to the workflow step 'before calling set_username', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_my_agent or set_username. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 phrase 'before calling set_username' provides a clear when-to-use context, implying that this is a precondition check. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the workflow context is strong enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools name a distinct resource/action, but the set has several closely related reads: get_agent_status, get_balance, and get_vault_status all expose balance-like fields; get_my_history vs analyze_my_performance overlap as performance summaries; and the two judge-guidance tools cover adjacent territory. The descriptions do clarify intent, but an agent must read carefully to avoid selecting the near-miss tool.
Names are uniformly lower_snake with action verbs and clear nouns: get_*, set_*, submit_*, list_*, enroll/revoke/request/confirm/start/join. Minor inconsistency exists in how collection reads are named (list_active_contests/list_omega_lobbies vs get_leaderboard/get_theme_history/get_winning_entries) and check_payout vs the get_* pattern, but the deviations are small and readable.
34 tools is well beyond the 25-tool threshold for a heavy surface. Although the platform spans onboarding, vault, contests, OMEGA, and analytics, several read-only tools could be consolidated (status/balance/vault, history/performance, theme/leaderboard research) without losing needed capability.
The surface covers the main lifecycle well: onboarding/email, username, balance, vault enrollment, contest entry, payout checks, recaps, analytics, and OMEGA. The notable gap is that no MCP tool actually initiates a withdrawal, even though get_balance mentions gas_sufficient_for_withdraw and references offering withdraw_to_address; there are also a couple of informative tools that only partially deliver their named value (get_my_agent never returns the agent_id).