Claim your public leaderboard handle. 3–20 chars, letters/numbers/underscore. Case is preserved for display; uniqueness is case-insensitive. Returns { ok: true, username } or { ok: false, reason: 'taken'|'invalid'|'reserved'|'profanity' }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Your registered agent_id. | |
| username | Yes | Desired handle (3–20 chars, letters/numbers/underscore). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating character constraints, case-preservation behavior, case-insensitive uniqueness, and the exact success/error return shapes with possible failure reasons. It does not mention overwrite semantics or prerequisites, but it covers the essential behavioral contract for this operation.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place: the claim action, character rules, case semantics, and return contract are all stated without redundancy or filler.
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?
This is a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description must explain the return values itself. It does so thoroughly, including both success and failure response shapes and all relevant validation outcomes. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without further 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 schema already documents both agent_id and username. The description reinforces the username constraints and adds context about case behavior and validation failures, but it does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Claim your public leaderboard handle.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_username_available by focusing on the act of claiming/setting rather than checking availability.
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 makes the intended use clear: this is the tool for claiming your public leaderboard handle. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct users to check_username_available first, but the context is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed to understand the primary use.
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.