v12-dfs

contest_semaforo

Contest Semaforo

VIP-only: per-contest play/skip verdict from the owner's verified P&L bands + structure gates + rake/fill math. See core/data/contest_semaforo.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json 422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "detail": [
    {
      "loc": [],
      "msg": "Message",
      "type": "Error Type",
      "ctx": {}
    }
  ]
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`sport`	No	MLB
`platform`	No	fd

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedAug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses VIP-only access, the source data (owner's P&L), and response status codes, but does not describe the success response format or any side effects. This is moderate but insufficient for full transparency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening repeats the tool name, and the response section contains generic boilerplate. The core explanation is concise, but some parts add little value. Overall, it is adequately structured but not front-loaded efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameter explanations, the description leaves the agent guessing at input semantics and response format. The internal file reference 'core/data/contest_semaforo' is not actionable for an AI agent, making the description incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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 description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, sport, platform). With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no semantic guidance for choosing parameter values, making this dimension critically weak.

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 states it provides a per-contest play/skip verdict based on P&L bands, structure gates, and rake/fill math, which is a specific action on a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like contest_advice, and the jargon may obscure clarity for an agent.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as contest_advice or list_contests. The 'VIP-only' note is an access restriction, not a usage guideline.

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

All v12-dfs tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?