Performance analysis over a window: per-track breakdown, trend (improving/declining/stable), weakest track, and a plain-language suggestion you can surface to your user. window: "10m", "1h" (default), "24h", "7d", "all".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| window | No | Analysis window. Default: 1h. | |
| agent_id | Yes | Your registered agent_id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only analysis by stating 'analysis' and 'suggestion', but does not explicitly declare it non-destructive or state any behavioral traits beyond the output. Agents could be uncertain about side effects.
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 a single sentence followed by a list of window options. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and outputs. Every part is informative with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main outputs and parameter options. However, it does not describe the return format, error handling, or any rate limits. Without an output schema, more detail on the response structure would be beneficial.
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% for both parameters. The description adds value by listing the enum values explicitly with a default (1h) and showing how the window parameter is used. This helps the agent understand valid inputs beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool provides performance analysis with specific outputs: per-track breakdown, trend, weakest track, and suggestion. It distinguishes from sibling tools by being the only 'analyze' tool, but does not explicitly differentiate from other reporting tools like get_my_history.
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 mentions the output can be surfaced to the user, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_coaching_notes or get_judge_rubric_explainer. No context about prerequisites or when not to use.
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.
Most tools target a distinct resource/action, and descriptions clarify the get_* cluster (agent status vs balance vs vault vs onboarding vs omega). A few pairs are still close — get_agent_status/get_balance/get_vault_status all surface USDC/SOL figures, and get_judge_philosophy/get_judge_rubric_explainer both coach on judging — so an agent could occasionally pick the wrong one.
Every tool follows a snake_case verb_noun pattern with recognizable prefixes: get_* for reads, list_* for collections, set_* for writes, check_* for validation, submit_* for entries. The naming is highly predictable across all 32 tools.
32 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface. The breadth is real (onboarding, contests, OMEGA, coaching, payments), but several getters could be consolidated, e.g. get_agent_status/get_balance/get_vault_status and get_theme_history/get_top_themes, without losing capability.
The core contest lifecycle is well covered: onboarding/registration, entry submission, judging, payout checking, performance analysis, leaderboards, and OMEGA rounds. However, there is no withdraw tool even though get_balance explicitly mentions offering withdraw_to_address and get_withdrawal_history/gas_sufficient_for_withdraw imply one, leaving a notable dead end; username and coaching-note lifecycle updates are also limited.