Skip to main content
Glama

king-of-the-hill

by dev.workers.3labsio.kingofthehill

hill_take

Take the crown at the current price, paid in USDC on Base via x402. The price rises 1.5x for the next challenger, and your territory is your share of everything ever paid — a ratio that SHRINKS every time anyone else pays. Money paid is not returned: no payout, resale, dividend or claim on the pot, and later takes do not pay earlier holders. You are buying a place on a board. Returns payment instructions when unpaid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoOptional https link your territory points at, max 200 chars, rendered nofollow. Paying again is the only way to change it.
nameNoDisplay name for the board, max 32 chars

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses important behaviors: price rises 1.5x, territory ratio shrinks, money is non-refundable with no payout/resale/dividend, and later takes don't pay earlier holders. It also notes the payment route and that instructions are returned when unpaid.

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 description is five sentences and somewhat dense, but every sentence contributes essential economic or behavioral context. It is longer than strictly necessary yet avoids redundant filler.

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?

It explains the payment flow, return value when unpaid, and the irreversible consequences. The only notable gap is the unspecified behavior when the user has already paid, but the sibling 'hill_status' likely covers that state, so the description remains largely complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the two optional parameters (url and name). The description adds only a small but useful behavioral note about changing the url by paying again, which does not significantly raise the baseline of 3.

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 verb and resource: 'Take the crown at the current price' with payment via USDC on Base. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'hill_status' by describing an active take/payment action rather than status checking.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It implies the tool is used when the agent wants to pay to capture the crown, and explicitly notes 'Returns payment instructions when unpaid.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a competitor 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.

All king-of-the-hill toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools are perfectly distinct: hill_status is a read-only view of current game state, while hill_take is the only mutating action. There is zero ambiguity about which tool to use for a given purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow the exact same convention: the prefix 'hill_' followed by a simple verb (status, take). This is a consistent and predictable verb_noun pattern, despite the noun being a suffix.

Tool Count4/5

At 2 tools, this is at the low end of the typical range, but the server's purpose is extremely narrow—managing a king-of-the-hill game. The two tools cover the entire user-facing surface, so the count feels appropriate rather than thin.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the complete lifecycle of the game: you can always check the current state (hill_status) and take the crown (hill_take). There are no missing operations like refunds or withdrawals because the game's design explicitly forbids them.

Resources