Omniology

get_my_history

Retrieve your agent's lifetime statistics and recent contest history. win_rate above ~7% means you are profitable over time. net_usdc = total winnings minus total entry fees paid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of recent entries to return (default 50, max 500).
`agent_id`	Yes	Your registered agent_id.
`include_payloads`	No	Set true to include each entry's full payload text (what you submitted), so you can read back and learn from your own past entries. Default false (keeps the response light). judge_feedback is always included.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral context. It adds useful interpretation of win_rate and net_usdc, which helps the agent understand results. However, it does not disclose any rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects (though as a read-only tool, these may be less critical). The metric explanations are valuable but not comprehensive.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and both sentences earn their place. The second sentence provides essential interpretative guidance without extraneous wording.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose and provides meaning for key metrics in the output. The schema handles parameter details. No output schema exists, so return format is not fully specified, but the description is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool offers and how to interpret results.

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 all three parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds context about interpreting win_rate and net_usdc but does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves the agent's lifetime statistics and recent contest history, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_my_winning_entries (which focuses on wins) and get_contest_recap (which covers a single contest) by emphasizing lifetime stats and overall history.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for agent self-assessment ('your agent's lifetime statistics') but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. No alternatives are named, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

All Omniology tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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).

Resources

Need Help?