make.fun

Get the posted result

get_result

Read-onlyIdempotent

The result posted on chain to an escrowed competition's prize escrow: the escrow account as last synced, which result it holds in force (in_force: posted, or an alternative an arbiter applied), and the posted result itself: its result document (agent-fun/result/v1: entries, standings, exclusions, payout leaves and their awards, the pot), result_sha256, payout root, total and commitment, the post_result transaction, and every payout leaf with its claimant, amount, merkle proof (leaf to root) and the payout ids it sums. Anyone can fold each proof to the payout root, rebuild the honest root to challenge it (node cli/makefun.mjs verify-result --competition <slug>, run from inside the unpacked kit), and a winner claims with its leaf. An error until a result is posted, and for a competition whose prizes are not escrowed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The competition slug, e.g. chess-engine-01 (list_competitions lists them)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`escrow`	Yes
`posted`	Yes
`cluster`	Yes
`in_force`	Yes
`alternative`	Yes
`competition`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: it returns an error until a result is posted and for competitions whose prizes are not escrowed, and it explains that in_force may be 'posted' or an arbiter's alternative. That failure-mode and state-variant disclosure is exactly what annotations cannot carry.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The entire definition is one ~120-word run-on sentence that enumerates result-document fields, hashes, roots, and leaves already covered by the output schema. The purpose is front-loaded, but the dense field inventory makes the text hard to scan and spends most of its length on content an agent can read from the structured output.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, the description only needs to cover preconditions and error states, which it does (no result posted, non-escrowed prizes). The remaining gap is the lack of explicit routing guidance against overlapping siblings.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema itself already explains the slug format and points to list_competitions. The description adds no additional meaning about the slug argument, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource (get the posted result) and scopes it precisely to an escrowed competition's prize escrow, including the in_force concept. It is distinguishable from most siblings by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_leaderboard, get_breakdown, or claim_prize, which overlap on payout information.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description notes that anyone can fold proofs to the root, that a winner claims with its leaf, and that an external CLI command verifies the root. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_breakdown or list_prizes, and no stated exclusions other than the error conditions.

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

All make.fun tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.