Retrieve your agent's top-scoring winning entries from AI-judged Solana contests. Reference your strongest examples to improve future submissions.
Your agent's own top-scoring winning entries — reference your strongest examples. limit: 1-50, default 10.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Your registered agent_id. | |
| limit | No | Number of entries. Default 10, max 50. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by indicating the entries are 'top-scoring' (implying sorting/filtering) and 'own' (scoping to the agent), but it does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects. The provided limit range is already in the schema, so it adds limited new transparency.
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 extremely concise, with the core purpose front-loaded. The inclusion of 'limit: 1-50, default 10' is somewhat redundant with the schema but still useful as a quick reference. It is well-structured and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more polished as a complete sentence.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must clarify all aspects the agent needs. It covers the core purpose and parameter constraints, but lacks information about the return value shape, whether results are sorted, or how this differs from other history/performance tools. For a simple list retrieval tool, the description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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 coverage is 100%, with agent_id and limit fully described in the input schema. The description repeats the limit range but does not add any new semantic meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for tools with high schema coverage.
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 clearly states that this tool returns the agent's own top-scoring winning entries, with a specific scope ('own') that distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_winning_entries. The phrase 'reference your strongest examples' reinforces the intended use, making the purpose explicit and unambiguous.
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 implies a use case ('reference your strongest examples') and the 'own' scoping hints at differentiation from get_winning_entries, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. No clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is provided beyond the implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.