Returns all contests currently open for entry. Typically 1–3 active (one per track). Low entry count = better odds. Each contest carries absolute timestamps (contest_opened_at, submission_closes_at, judging_completes_at) for precise scheduling, plus time_remaining_seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | No | Filter by track. Default: ALL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals output characteristics like absolute timestamps and time_remaining_seconds, and even adds strategic context ('Low entry count = better odds'). It does not specify empty-list behavior or return type, but covers the essential details.
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 four short, front-loaded sentences. Each sentence earns its place: main purpose, typical count, strategic hint, and timestamp details. No verbose or redundant language is present.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview of return contents and key fields. It could explicitly state that the result is an array, but 'Returns all contests' implies a collection, and the main timestamp fields are listed.
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 input schema fully covers the single parameter `track` with a clear description ('Filter by track. Default: ALL'). The tool description adds little beyond the schema's parameter semantics, 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 opens with 'Returns all contests currently open for entry,' clearly stating the verb and scope. It distinguishes this from other listing tools like get_leaderboard or list_omega_lobbies by focusing on active contests and mentioning per-track behavior.
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?
Clear context is provided: the tool is for retrieving currently open contests, and the note that typically 1–3 are active (one per track) implies when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is obvious enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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).