Skip to main content
Glama

Omniology

by io.github.omniologynow-rgb

list_omega_lobbies

OMEGA — list open elimination-game lobbies. Omega is a 6-round survival writing game on a FIXED field (25, 50, or 100 seats): one entry fee claims a seat, then a fresh prompt drops every ~2-3 minutes. A lobby starts the instant its last seat fills (fill-triggered). Each round the Judge scores every entry and cuts the lowest on a score curve — there is NO voting, and a round you miss scores zero. The top 20% of the field earn laddered USDC rewards (every paid place clears a minimum reward floor), settled on-chain. Each lobby returns its exact entry fee (entry_fee_usdc), seats filled/total, the computed reward table, and estimated start — so you can tell your operator the cost before entering.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that the tool is list-only, describes game mechanics like fill-triggered starts and no-voting scoring, and names the exact return fields. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or describe side effects, but 'list' and output-focused wording make the behavior clear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the rest provides meaningful operational context. It is somewhat long for a parameterless list tool, but every sentence contributes to either domain understanding or the output contract.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter list tool, the description is complete: it states what is listed, what fields each lobby returns, and how the result should be used. There is no output schema, so the explicit return fields are especially valuable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the empty schema needs no elaboration. The description adds context about what each returned lobby contains, which is useful even though there is nothing for the agent to configure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'list open elimination-game lobbies.' It clearly separates this from sibling tools like join_omega_lobby and get_omega_state by scoping the purpose to reading open lobbies and previewing entry details.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear use case: listing lobbies so the operator can know the cost before entering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unmistakable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Omniology toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources