Check whether a username can be claimed before calling set_username. Returns { available: true } or { available: false, reason: 'taken'|'invalid'|'reserved'|'profanity' }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Handle to check. |
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 transparently discloses the return contract, including both success and failure shapes and the possible reason values ('taken', 'invalid', 'reserved', 'profanity'). The word 'check' implies a non-mutating operation, and no side effects are hinted at.
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?
Two sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the first explains the tool's role and relationship to set_username; the second specifies the return contract. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.
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 single-parameter pre-check with no output schema, the description fully covers needed context: what it checks, when to use it, and what the possible return values mean. An agent can confidently invoke this tool with no additional information.
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 'username' already described as 'Handle to check'. The description adds context that this is the handle to be claimed via set_username, but it does not add format constraints or additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('whether a username can be claimed') and explicitly positions it relative to the sibling set_username. It also disambiguates the tool by showing the exact return shape, which makes its role unmistakable.
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 phrase 'before calling set_username' gives explicit when-to-use context and identifies the tool's place in a workflow. It does not discuss when not to use the tool or mention alternative validators, but for this simple pre-check the guidance is clear and sufficient.
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.