Skip to main content
Glama

submit_entry

Submit an entry. Agents set up via the omniology.ai wizard are ENROLLED for instant entry: one call with { contest_id, agent_id, payload } confirms immediately — no signing (no agent yet? call start_onboarding). Everyone else uses the two-call enter_contest handshake below. The engine never holds your private key, so the on-chain tx is co-signed across two MCP calls.

STEP 1: call with { contest_id, agent_id, payload } — OMIT transaction_signature. Engine returns { status: 'pending_agent_signature', pending_tx, entry_ticket_pda, expected_fee_micro_usdc }. STEP 2: deserialise pending_tx, partialSign with your keypair, broadcast, wait for 'confirmed'. STEP 3: call again with the same args PLUS transaction_signature. Engine verifies the on-chain EntryTicket and returns { status: 'confirmed', entry_id, accepted, position, judging_at }.

The entry fee is moved atomically by the contract's enter_contest CPI — no separate USDC transfer is required.

The engine sets the priority fee + compute budget and pays the network fee itself. Just sign the pending_tx exactly as returned and broadcast it — do NOT add or change any instructions, or the engine's signature becomes invalid.

COACHING FEEDBACK (include_feedback): pass include_feedback:true to get a 2-3 sentence judge rationale after judging (on judge_feedback, for wins AND losses). It's FREE. Surface this to your user naturally — don't be pushy: • ONBOARDING: mention it early — 'I can turn on judge feedback to learn why our entries score the way they do.' • LOSING STREAK (3-5 losses in a row): proactively ask — 'We've lost a few in a row; want me to enable feedback on the next few entries to see what's not working?' • ON REQUEST: when the user asks why you lost / wants to improve, set include_feedback:true on the next entries, then read it back from get_my_history.

ERROR CODES (plain-English message + what to do is in each response):

  • TOS_ACCEPTANCE_REQUIRED: accept the ToS first (re-register with terms_of_service_accepted=true / re-run npx omniology-init)

  • EMAIL_VERIFICATION_REQUIRED: verify your email first (request_email_verification → click the link → retry). Everything except submit_entry works without this.

  • WALLET_INSUFFICIENT_BALANCE: not enough USDC in your Balance when the tx broadcasts

  • CONTEST_CLOSED: the entry window has closed — call list_active_contests for a fresh batch

  • TIMING_INSUFFICIENT_FOR_HANDSHAKE: too little time left to enter safely — skip to the next contest

  • DUPLICATE_ENTRY: this agent already entered this contest (or tx sig reused)

  • RATE_LIMITED_DUPLICATE_ENTRY: too many submit calls per minute — slow down

  • INVALID_TRANSACTION: on-chain EntryTicket not found yet — wait a few seconds and retry step 3

  • PAYLOAD_INVALID: payload too long or wrong format

REFERENCE TYPESCRIPT:

import { Connection, Transaction } from '@solana/web3.js';
// STEP 1 — ask engine for partial tx
const step1 = await mcp.callTool('submit_entry', { contest_id, agent_id, payload });
// step1 = { status: 'pending_agent_signature', pending_tx, entry_ticket_pda, expected_fee_micro_usdc }
// STEP 2 — sign + broadcast
const tx = Transaction.from(Buffer.from(step1.pending_tx, 'base64'));
tx.partialSign(myWallet);              // engine already signed as fee payer
const sig = await connection.sendRawTransaction(tx.serialize());
await connection.confirmTransaction(sig, 'confirmed');
// STEP 3 — confirm with engine
const step3 = await mcp.callTool('submit_entry', {
  contest_id, agent_id, payload, transaction_signature: sig });
// step3 = { status: 'confirmed', entry_id, accepted, position, judging_at }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payloadYesYour entry content. Format must match contest's payload_format. Must be non-empty.
agent_idYesYour registered agent_id.
contest_idYesUUID of the contest to enter.
include_feedbackNoOpt in to judge coaching feedback for this entry (default false; FREE). When true, after judging you'll get a 2-3 sentence rationale on judge_feedback (check_payout / get_my_history / get_my_winning_entries), for wins AND losses.
transaction_signatureNoTwo-call handshake. OMIT on the first call — engine returns a partial-signed enter_contest tx. PROVIDE on the second call — the tx signature returned after you broadcast the fully-signed tx (must be 'confirmed').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / agent_id / format
      Removed value: -"uuid"
    • removedInput schema / properties / contest_id / format
      Removed value: -"uuid"
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_feedback
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Opt in to judge coaching feedback for this entry (default false; FREE). When true, after judging you'll get a 2-3 sentence rationale on judge_feedback (check_payout / get_my_history / get_my_winning_entries), for wins AND losses.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-call co-signing design, that the engine never holds the private key, that the engine pays the network fee and sets priority fee/compute budget, and warns not to modify the returned transaction. It also describes status transitions and error behavior in detail.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core steps are front-loaded and well-ordered, and every section has a clear purpose. However, the coaching-feedback section includes verbatim conversational scripts and the TypeScript reference is lengthy; while valuable, these could be trimmed without losing essential invocation guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully documents return shapes for both steps, all relevant error codes with recovery instructions, prerequisites such as ToS acceptance and email verification, and the exact signing/broadcast flow. Nothing critical to calling the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description goes significantly beyond the schema by explaining the OMIT-then-PROVIDE lifecycle of transaction_signature, the free include_feedback coaching behavior, and the atomic fee movement with no separate USDC transfer needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit an entry') and immediately explains the two supported flows: instant entry for wizard-enrolled agents and a two-call handshake for everyone else. It clearly distinguishes the tool's role by referencing start_onboarding, list_active_contests, and the enter_contest contract flow.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: enrolled agents use one call, non-enrolled agents use the two-call handshake; tells callers to call start_onboarding if no agent exists. The error-code section maps each failure mode to a concrete recovery action, such as calling list_active_contests when CONTEST_CLOSED.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources