Skip to main content
Glama

sim_distill

Destructive

Distill exact search into the play scorer: fit rate multipliers for named transition groups so play's rankings agree with exact minimax, on positions sampled by random self-play and labeled by search. This is TACTICAL calibration — the counterpart of sim_calibrate, which learns rates from an event log. The division of labor is deliberate (the ode-minimax experiment): structure carries the tactic, and no fitting of an unmodified net's rates can express what its final state cannot separate — declare the structural prior as transitions in the model (e.g. forced-reply copies of the plays, catalyzed by the opponent's pattern) and distill the magnitudes it introduced. Zero agreement improvement is a finding about the structure, not a failed fit. Read agreementBefore/agreementAfter, not the loss: the hinge loss can overstate failure while every argmax is right. At most 16 groups, each non-empty, and no transition in two groups; the estimated work (loss evaluations × candidate moves × realizations × horizon) must stay under a fixed cap, and an over-cap request is refused with the estimate. Costs 5 tokens from your account's compute bucket at the defaults, scaled by that work estimate (rounded up).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesmodel id (needs simulation.objective, players with turnPlace)
groupsYesJSON object: group name -> transition ids sharing one fitted multiplier, e.g. {"detectors":["x_win_0","o_win_0"],"draw":["call_draw"]}
optionsNoJSON: {"games":20,"positions":40,"iters":40,"horizon":3,"realizations":40,"seed":11,"engine":""} (the defaults shown; 0 or unset takes the default). Caps: games at most 100, positions at most 100, iters at most 100, realizations at most 200, horizon at most 10000; over a cap, a negative value or an unknown key is refused

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / options / description
      Previous value: -"JSON: {\"games\":20,\"positions\":40,\"iters\":40,\"horizon\":3,\"realizations\":40,\"seed\":11,\"engine\":\"\"}"New value: +"JSON: {\"games\":20,\"positions\":40,\"iters\":40,\"horizon\":3,\"realizations\":40,\"seed\":11,\"engine\":\"\"} (the defaults shown; 0 or unset takes the default). Caps: games at most 100, positions at most 100, iters at most 100, realizations at most 200, horizon at most 10000; over a cap, a negative value or an unknown key is refused"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses hard constraints (at most 16 groups, non-empty, no transition in two groups), a work-estimate cap with refusal behavior, and cost (5 tokens from the compute bucket, scaled by work estimate). It also directs the agent to read agreementBefore/agreementAfter rather than the hinge loss, which is valuable behavioral context. Nothing contradicts the destructive/non-idempotent annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded, but the description is long and dense with philosophical asides (the ode-minimax experiment, what an unmodified net's final state can or cannot separate) that add little to tool selection. Several clauses could be trimmed without losing actionable guidance.

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 complex fitting tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states purpose, sibling differentiation, group constraints, work/cost budget and refusal behavior, and even which output fields to read (agreementBefore/agreementAfter) instead of the loss. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds semantics not in the schema: the 16-group cap, non-empty requirement, and the no-transition-in-two-groups rule for the groups parameter. These constraints materially guide correct construction of the groups argument.

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 names a specific verb and resource (fit rate multipliers for named transition groups) and a concrete goal (make play's rankings agree with exact minimax on search-labeled self-play positions). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling sim_calibrate as 'TACTICAL calibration' versus learning rates from an event log, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 clear usage context, including the alternative (sim_calibrate) and the division of labor, and tells the agent to declare the structural prior as transitions first and then distill magnitudes. It also frames a key interpretive rule ('Zero agreement improvement is a finding about the structure, not a failed fit'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use rule, keeping it just short of a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources