ratchet_invite
Request a fresh invitation to the RatchetX platform. An invite grants a non-privileged tracking handle for attribution but provides no funds or ranked status.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | No |
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 provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the outcome and limitations of an invite (non-privileged tracking handle, no funds or ranked status), but it does not mention whether repeated requests are allowed, whether the action creates persistent state, or what the response looks like. This is adequate but leaves notable gaps.
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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying detail about what an invite does/does not provide is concise and relevant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and outcome reasonably well. However, it leaves the 'source' parameter completely unexplained and does not describe the response or any side effects, so the description is not fully complete on its own.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, 'source', with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention this parameter at all. An agent cannot determine what 'source' means, whether it is optional, or what values are expected. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 names a specific verb ('Request') and resource ('fresh invitation to the RatchetX platform'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by identifying the exact action and its scope. The added detail that an invite grants a non-privileged tracking handle clarifies what the tool is for.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use it: when a fresh RatchetX invitation is needed. It also provides an exclusion by stating the invite provides no funds or ranked status, which helps an agent avoid using this tool for those purposes. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but none of the siblings appear to offer the same invitation capability.
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.