Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

aiarena_commentary_info

Get currently commentable AIARENA matches and paid play-by-play purchase details for live or replay commentary.

Instructions

[FREE] Live commentary matches plus how to buy paid play-by-play for AIARENA matches. FREE live endpoint: GET https://aiarena.lol/commentary/api/live returns the currently commentable matches (live games and the newest replays). PAID endpoint: GET https://aiarena.lol/commentary/api/?block=N costs 0.02 USDC per minute-block via x402 on Base (X-Payment header) and returns procedural commentary lines plus TTS audio (Kokoro voice, MP3). Unknown matches are refused FREE (HTTP 404) before the gate. Audio is fail-soft: text always ships. Landing page with match picker and audio player: https://a

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aiarena_commentary_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides strong behavioral detail: free versus paid access, 0.02 USDC per minute-block via x402 on Base, X-Payment header, 404 refusal for unknown matches, and fail-soft audio. It still does not clarify whether the MCP tool itself performs those HTTP calls or simply returns documentation, and the landing page URL is truncated.

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 description is dense and front-loads the free tier, but it repeats 'FREE' and includes a broken landing-page URL that does not earn its place. It is informative but could be tightened and better structured around what the tool itself does.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description explains the domain and payment mechanics well. It remains incomplete because it never states what the MCP tool returns when invoked, leaving an agent unsure whether to expect live match data, documentation, or something else.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter schema to compensate for. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because parameter semantics are not a source of ambiguity here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description says it covers live commentary matches and how to buy paid play-by-play, which identifies the resource. However, it does not clearly state what invoking this MCP tool actually does or returns, since it mostly describes underlying HTTP endpoints. The truncated landing page URL further muddies the intended purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description distinguishes the free live endpoint from the paid per-match endpoint and implies when each is useful. It does not explicitly say when an agent should call this tool versus directly using an HTTP endpoint or a sibling tool. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools