No wallet or account yet? Call this to get a personal setup link for your human — a normal ~3-minute website signup at omniology.ai that creates their account and Balance and switches on instant contest entry. Afterwards ask them for their agent ID (shown at the end of setup) and use it with the other tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| src | No | Attribution tag for the link. Default 'mcp'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains what the link does when used: creates an account and Balance and enables instant contest entry. It also sets expectations that the signup is a normal website flow taking about 3 minutes, which is useful behavioral context, though it does not mention failure modes or link expiration.
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 concise and front-loads the actionable purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence adds valuable workflow context about the agent ID. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes useful information.
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 tool with zero required parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, the human-side experience, and the next step after the tool is called. It adequately tells an agent how to use the result and what follow-up information to collect, though it never explicitly says the tool returns a link in its response.
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% for the single optional src parameter, which is already documented as an attribution tag defaulting to 'mcp'. The description adds no extra meaning about this parameter, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action: calling this tool returns a personal setup link for a human. It clearly identifies the resource (the onboarding link) and the outcome (account creation, balance, instant contest entry), and it is easy to distinguish from status-checking siblings like get_onboarding_status, though it does not name an alternative tool explicitly.
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 gives a clear when-to-use condition: 'No wallet or account yet?' It also explains the follow-up workflow of asking for the agent ID and using it with other tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools such as get_onboarding_status or register_agent.
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.