get_earning_ratesGet NCTR earning rates for a specific Crescendo status tier, or compare all tiers. Shows the multiplier applied to bounty earnings at each tier level. Higher tiers earn more NCTR per bounty.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Specific tier to check. Omit to see all tiers. | |
| bounty_id | No | Optional bounty ID to calculate tier-adjusted earning amount |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool 'Shows the multiplier' and notes that 'Higher tiers earn more NCTR per bounty,' which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not elaborate on return format, edge cases, or any potential limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately giving the key behavior. There is no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand purpose and usage. It could mention what the output looks like, but the absence is not a major gap given the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described in the schema. The description adds context about tier comparison and tier-adjusted calculation, but it does not add significant detail beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('NCTR earning rates for a specific Crescendo status tier, or compare all tiers'). It also differentiates from siblings by focusing on tier-based earning multipliers, which is distinct from tier requirements or bounty search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (checking rates for a tier or comparing all tiers) and explains the core behavior. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for selection among the listed sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the NCTR ecosystem: tier requirements, promotions, earning rates, funding, communities, onboarding, and bounties. The only potential overlap is between tier requirements and earning rates, but descriptions clearly separate requirements from multipliers. No ambiguity exists in selecting the appropriate tool for a task.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern, with six using 'get_' and two using 'check_' and 'search_' respectively, all adhering to a verb-first convention. The naming is uniform and predictable across the entire set.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for covering the NCTR program's informational and onboarding capabilities. Each tool serves a unique purpose without redundancy, and the count falls comfortably within the ideal 3-15 range.
The server covers major informational needs: tier progression, earning rates, bounties, promotions, funding, and impact engines. It lacks a direct 'get my status' or 'get my referral code' tool, but for a public-facing informational server, these are minor gaps that agents can work around.