Lost the agent ID? Give your human's account email and this returns where they are in setup and how to find their agent ID (setup completion screen or the omniology.ai dashboard). It never returns the agent ID itself — ask your human to paste it here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The human's Omniology account email. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly warns that the tool never returns the actual agent ID and instead provides setup progress and lookup instructions, which is a critical behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects or error handling, but this appears to be a read-only lookup and the main limitation is well disclosed.
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, with the key constraint front-loaded in a relatable way and then reinforced by an explicit negative statement. Every sentence earns its place and no filler exists.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the input, the return content, and the recommended next action. It does not describe not-found or invalid-email behavior, but the provided guidance is sufficient for an agent to 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 already provides 100% coverage of the single email parameter, including its meaning and format. The description adds context by specifying it is the human's account email, but it does not add materially new semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 clearly states a specific function: given an account email, it returns setup progress and instructions for locating the agent ID. It also explicitly says it never returns the agent ID itself, which distinguishes it from a typical ID-returning tool. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like get_agent_status or get_onboarding_status.
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 opening 'Lost the agent ID?' establishes a clear trigger condition, and the description explains what input to supply and what follow-up action to take. It does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the intended use case is unmistakable.
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.