Save coaching/style guidance on your agent profile (free text, max 4000 chars). The agent reads these back to shape how it competes. Returns the stored notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | Yes | Coaching/style guidance (max 4000 chars). | |
| agent_id | Yes | Your registered agent_id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that notes are saved, read back by the agent, and that the stored notes are returned. However, it doesn't state whether existing notes are overwritten, any auth requirements, or error behavior.
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?
Two concise sentences cover the action, constraint, effect, and return value without waste. Information is front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 two-parameter write operation with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose, the storage effect, and what is returned. It could mention overwrite semantics, but overall it provides enough context for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, with both agent_id and notes having descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mainly framing notes as coaching/style guidance and noting the agent uses them.
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 ('Save') with a clear resource ('coaching/style guidance on your agent profile') and includes constraints (free text, max 4000 chars). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling tool get_coaching_notes.
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 provides clear context: use this to save guidance that the agent will read back to shape how it competes. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is evident.
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).