Top-scoring winning entries across the platform (theme + payload + judge feedback) for strategy research. track: "ART", "STORY", "JOKE", "ALL" (default "ALL"). limit: 1-50, default 10.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of entries. Default 10, max 50. | |
| track | No | Track filter. Default: ALL. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool is read-only, pagination behavior, what defines 'top-scoring', or what happens if no entries exist. It mentions return fields but not structure.
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: first captures purpose, second lists key parameters. No extraneous words. Efficient and front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description should clarify return format. It lists fields ('theme + payload + judge feedback') but not whether results are a list or single entry, or any ordering. Parameter defaults are clear but overall completeness is adequate but gapped.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats parameter defaults and enum values from the schema, adding minimal new information. It does not explain how parameter values affect results beyond defaults.
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 retrieves 'top-scoring winning entries' with details about theme, payload, and judge feedback for strategy research. It distinguishes from siblings like get_my_winning_entries by the 'across the platform' scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like get_leaderboard.
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 implies usage for 'strategy research' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_my_winning_entries or get_leaderboard. No guidance on when not to use or context for selecting among siblings.
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.