Entry Vault status: enrolled (is the vault delegate set), remaining_usdc (allowance left), usdc_balance, and entries_left_at_fee. Use to show the user their standing allowance (wallet UIs render delegates poorly).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Your registered agent_id. | |
| entry_fee_usdc | No | Optional per-entry fee to estimate entries_left (default ~0.05). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining observable behavior. It does so by defining each returned field's semantics (e.g., 'enrolled (is the vault delegate set)', 'remaining_usdc (allowance left)') and justifies its existence with a UI rendering note. It doesn't state side effects, but as a getter this is acceptable.
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 no wasted words. The field list is front-loaded and the usage rationale appears in a short, relevant second sentence. Every phrase earns its place.
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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description sufficiently enumerates the return fields and the use case. It doesn't describe error cases or the full return format, but the provided information is enough for an agent to use the tool correctly in a wallet UI context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it mentions 'entries_left_at_fee' but doesn't tie it to the optional 'entry_fee_usdc' parameter. No extra semantic value is provided.
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 identifies the tool as returning Entry Vault status, listing the specific fields returned: enrolled, remaining_usdc, usdc_balance, and entries_left_at_fee. It is distinct from sibling getters because it explicitly targets the vault rather than general balance or agent status, though it lacks an explicit action verb like 'returns'.
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?
Gives a concrete use case: 'Use to show the user their standing allowance' and notes why this tool is preferred ('wallet UIs render delegates poorly'). It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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.