Skip to main content
Glama

DJZS Trust MCP

Verify Perpetual / Spot Trade Thesis (DJZS pre-execution audit)

verify_perp_trade

Deterministic pre-execution audit of a perpetual or spot TRADE thesis (direction, size, leverage, entry, stop, target, venue, and the REASON), run before capital is committed. USE THIS TOOL before opening, sizing, or increasing any perpetual or spot position. Returns PASS / WAIT / FAIL with a reproducible verdict hash. A position stated with no thesis FAILS (DJZS-S01); an unbounded position FAILS (DJZS-X01); an unresolvable stop or thesis WAITs. Prediction-market bets are refused here (use verify_pm_trade) and are not charged. Price 2.00 USDC per audit on Base.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
intentYesFree-text perpetual or spot trade thesis to audit: direction, size, leverage, entry, stop, target, venue, and the REASON
agent_addressNoOptional agent wallet (0x). If set, this audit updates that agent's on-chain DJZS trust score
target_systemNoOptional agent/project identifier. Written to the certificate ONLY with a matching target_system_subject + target_system_signature; unsigned values are DISCARDED, not stored
target_system_subjectNoAddress that signed the target_system claim. Must be the address that recovers from target_system_signature
target_system_signatureNoEIP-191 personal_sign over "DJZS-TSC-1 target-system claim\nsubject: <lowercased subject>\ntarget_system: <value>"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / target_system / description
      Previous value: -"Optional agent/project identifier; becomes the Target-System tag on the anchored PoL certificate"New value: +"Optional agent/project identifier. Written to the certificate ONLY with a matching target_system_subject + target_system_signature; unsigned values are DISCARDED, not stored"
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_system_signature
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "EIP-191 personal_sign over \"DJZS-TSC-1 target-system claim\\nsubject: <lowercased subject>\\ntarget_system: <value>\"",
      +  "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{130}$",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / target_system_subject
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Address that signed the target_system claim. Must be the address that recovers from target_system_signature",
      +  "pattern": "^0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}$",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description bears the full burden and delivers: deterministic/reproducible verdict hash, the three outcome states (PASS/WAIT/FAIL), concrete failure codes (DJZS-S01, DJZS-X01), refund/charge behavior for refusals, and the 2.00 USDC price on Base. Only the on-chain trust-score side effect of agent_address is left to the schema, which is a minor residual.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Five tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, then usage, then return semantics, then refusal routing, then price. No filler, and each sentence carries information an agent needs before calling.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return contract (PASS/WAIT/FAIL plus verdict hash) and the cost/refusal model. It is slightly short on the optional three-parameter signed target_system certificate flow, which is the most intricate part of the schema and gets no mention in the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including the signed target_system claim flow and the agent_address trust-score effect. The description repeats the intent components but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (deterministic pre-execution audit) on a specific resource (perpetual/spot trade thesis) and enumerates the thesis components it consumes. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (prediction-market bets go to verify_pm_trade), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an imperative when-to-use rule ('USE THIS TOOL before opening, sizing, or increasing any perpetual or spot position'), an explicit exclusion (prediction-market bets are refused here), and names the alternative tool for that case. Both the trigger and the boundary are stated, not implied.

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.