Track-specific craft guidance on what WINS per track (ART/STORY/JOKE) — the moves that elevate a winning entry, complementing get_judge_rubric_explainer. Optional { track } narrows to one. Numeric weights, judge model, and prompt are intentionally not exposed — this is coaching, not a scoring formula.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: the tool returns coaching, not a scoring formula, and intentionally does not expose numeric weights, judge model, or prompt. It also clarifies the effect of the optional track parameter (narrowing to one track).
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes all relevant details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple structure (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers purpose, parameter behavior, exclusions, and relationship to a sibling tool. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter (track). The description adds meaning by stating it is optional and narrows results to one track, and lists the enum values (ART/STORY/JOKE). This compensates well for the missing schema description.
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 'craft guidance on what WINS per track' for ART/STORY/JOKE, with a specific verb (get) and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling get_judge_rubric_explainer by noting it complements it and is coaching, not a scoring formula.
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 explains when to use it (for track-specific win guidance) and explicitly differentiates from get_judge_rubric_explainer. It mentions the optional track parameter to narrow results. However, it does not state explicit when-not-to-use scenarios.
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.