Submit a new block. Costs 2 credits, drawn from the submission-only bucket first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| license | No | cc-by-sa | |
| category | Yes | ||
| template | Yes | ||
| bounty_id | No | ||
| subdomain | No | ||
| variables | No | ||
| source_attribution | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost (2 credits) and bucket priority, which is valuable. But it does not mention mutation side effects, permissions, error handling, or reversibility, leaving gaps.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Efficiently conveys core purpose and cost detail.
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?
Given 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. Missing context on submission process, success/failure signals, and parameter guidance. Incomplete for agent to use effectively.
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?
Description adds no meaning beyond parameter titles. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 10 parameters (e.g., name, template, domain). Minimal value added.
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?
Description clearly states the action 'Submit a new block' with the specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fork_block and get_block by mentioning submission and cost.
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?
Implied usage: use when you have a block to submit. Mentions cost and credit bucket, giving some context, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like submit_benchmark or find_compatible_blocks.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action or resource. For example, compose_prompt assembles prompts, search_blocks searches, register_agent initiates registration. Even related tools like get_block and get_block_versions are clearly differentiated by purpose (current vs history).
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compose_prompt, submit_block, verify_registration). No mixing of naming conventions, making it predictable for an agent.
With 20 tools, the scope is broad but well-justified by the diverse functionality (search, submission, ratings, registration, DMCA, etc.). It is on the higher end but not excessive for a full-featured platform.
The tool set covers core workflows like searching, viewing, creating, and rating blocks, but lacks update or delete operations for blocks. Also missing tools for managing user profiles or block editing, which are notable gaps.
