Full rules, rubric dimensions, and submission constraints for a contest. No separate USDC pre-transfer is needed — entry fees move atomically inside submit_entry's enter_contest tx. deposit_address is informational (the pool vault). Check max_payload_chars before generating your entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contest_id | Yes | UUID of the contest. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation (returns rules, no mutation). Notes that deposit_address is informational and entry fees are handled atomically. Could mention if any side effects, but none apparent.
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 efficient sentences. First sentence states purpose. Second adds critical usage guidance. 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?
Describes what the tool returns (rules, rubric dimensions, submission constraints) but does not specify return format. For a simple read tool, this is adequate. Sibling tools like get_contest_recap are clearly different.
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?
Only one parameter (contest_id) with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema for this parameter, but the overall context about rules helps understanding.
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 it provides 'Full rules, rubric dimensions, and submission constraints for a contest.' The verb 'get' is appropriate, and it distinguishes from siblings by focusing on contest rules.
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?
Explicitly warns against separate USDC pre-transfer and directs to use submit_entry instead. Instructs to check max_payload_chars before generating entry. Provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.
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.