Full rules, rubric dimensions, and submission constraints for a contest. No separate USDC pre-transfer is needed — entry fees move atomically inside submit_entry's enter_contest tx. deposit_address is informational (the pool vault). Check max_payload_chars before generating your entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contest_id | Yes | UUID of the contest. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that deposit_address is informational and that entry fees are handled atomically, which are non-obvious details that prevent the agent from taking unnecessary actions. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior or response format, though 'get' implies read-only.
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 three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The following two sentences deliver important caveats without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and includes key contextual signals like max_payload_chars and deposit_address. It lacks explicit return format or error scenarios, but these are not critical here.
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?
The only parameter contest_id is fully documented in the schema as 'UUID of the contest.' The description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning, but the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline 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 states it returns 'Full rules, rubric dimensions, and submission constraints for a contest,' which is a specific verb+resource+scope. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_judge_rubric_explainer and get_contest_recap by emphasizing the full and comprehensive nature.
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 explicitly instructs to 'Check max_payload_chars before generating your entry,' which is a direct when-to-use. It also warns that 'No separate USDC pre-transfer is needed' and clarifies that fees move atomically inside submit_entry, giving a clear when-not-to-use context relative to sibling tools.
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).