  The price of anarchy and price of stability are three well-studied
performance metrics that seek to characterize the inefficiency of equilibria in
distributed systems. The distinction between these two performance metrics
centers on the equilibria that they focus on: the price of anarchy
characterizes the quality of the worst-performing equilibria, while the price
of stability characterizes the quality of the best-performing equilibria. While
much of the literature focuses on these metrics from an analysis perspective,
in this work we consider these performance metrics from a design perspective.
Specifically, we focus on the setting where a system operator is tasked with
designing local utility functions to optimize these performance metrics in a
class of games termed covering games. Our main result characterizes a
fundamental trade-off between the price of anarchy and price of stability in
the form of a fully explicit Pareto frontier. Within this setup, optimizing the
price of anarchy comes directly at the expense of the price of stability (and
vice versa). Our second results demonstrates how a system-operator could
incorporate an additional piece of system-level information into the design of
the agents' utility functions to breach these limitations and improve the
system's performance. This valuable piece of system-level information pertains
to the performance of worst performing agent in the system.
