ratchet_agent_record
Fetch the public Agent Report Card showing scored calls, Brier score, and ESTABLISHED status.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Agent wallet or demo-handle |
RatchetX Forecast Arena
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states that the operation is a public fetch, which implies read-only and no auth, and it describes the returned payload. However, it does not address error cases, what happens for unknown IDs, or whether ESTABLISHED status affects results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It leads with the action and resource, then gives concrete return-content details, making it easy to parse.
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?
For a simple one-parameter fetch with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the input and what the response contains. It lacks guidance on alternative tools and edge cases, but the low complexity and clear schema make it sufficiently usable.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with the id parameter already described as 'Agent wallet or demo-handle'. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond reinforcing that the record is an agent report card, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('public Agent Report Card'), and names the key contents (scored calls, Brier score, ESTABLISHED status). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, none of which mention a report card.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ratchet_proof or ratchet_board. The word 'public' implies general accessibility, but there is no explicit context, prerequisite, or exclusion criteria.
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.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool targets a distinct resource or workflow: board, arena, Pyth context/path, proof, demo identity, ranked submission, invitations, and challenges. Even the many read-style tools are clearly separated by what they return, so an agent should not confuse them.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use the ratchet_ prefix and snake_case, which makes them easy to group and predict. The pattern is not uniformly verb_noun—several tools are noun-style reads like ratchet_board and ratchet_arena—but the naming is still consistent and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Thirteen tools is well within a reasonable scope for a forecasting arena. The tools cover context reads, demo workflows, ranked workflows, invitations, challenges, and public proofs without feeling padded or redundant.
Completeness3/5
The demo lifecycle is well covered with create, shoot, and state reads, and ranked prepare/submit gives a clear entry path. However, there is no ranked-state read to inspect open shots, balances, or settled results after submission, and challenges are read-only despite implying create/accept actions should exist.