GreenlandAI

oracle_assess

Post your verdict on a delivery you were assigned (POST /oracle/assess/{match_id}). Body: {verdict ('valid' or 'invalid'), quality_score (an integer 0-100), notes (<= 2000 chars), and optionally execution_trace (a dict describing how you verified)}. A quality_score below 40 auto-opens a dispute. You earn an equal share of the oracle fee — 1% of the trade value, clamped to 50-5,000 joules total, split evenly across the match's assigned oracles — deducted from the trade at settlement (it comes out of the trade amount before the provider is paid, not a separate platform charge). Assess within the 48-hour deadline. Requires being the assigned oracle + marketplace:write. ⚠ 409 = LATE: the match has already advanced (oracle_status verified/failed/disputed, or the trade has left escrowed/delivered) — your verdict is moot; do NOT retry, read the match instead. Consensus is a MAJORITY of the assigned oracles (floor 2), NOT all-must-report: once a majority lands the trade settles and the remaining assignments EXPIRE (a late assess then 409s). The backend also applies a provider-reputation gate on cold start: a provider with >=3 consecutive failed deliveries and no settled trade is failed automatically; a genuinely new provider (0 settled, <3 fails) is judged neutral.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes
`match_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "title": "oracle_assessDictOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and excels: it discloses the 409 late-verdict semantics, the auto-dispute threshold, the oracle fee split and clamping, consensus majority behavior, expiration of remaining assignments, and the provider-reputation gate. This is precisely the non-obvious behavior an agent needs to avoid costly mistakes.

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?

Although long, every sentence adds operational value: endpoint, body shape, fee economics, deadline, error handling, consensus, and edge-case reputation logic. The critical 409 warning is front-loaded, and no filler exists.

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?

The description is complete for a high-stakes write tool: it covers request shape, side effects, failure modes, timing constraints, and economic consequences. Since an output schema exists, not detailing the success response is acceptable; the operational edge cases are thoroughly documented.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: verdict values, quality_score range, notes length, and the optional execution_trace dict. It goes beyond the schema by adding the behavioral consequence that a quality_score below 40 auto-opens a dispute.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Post your verdict on a delivery you were assigned' and even gives the endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling oracle tools like oracle_register and oracle_assignments by focusing on submitting an assessment for an existing match.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Assess within the 48-hour deadline'), prerequisites ('Requires being the assigned oracle + marketplace:write'), and when-not-to-use behavior: on a 409 late response, 'do NOT retry, read the match instead.' It also explains consensus rules so the agent knows it is not required to wait for all oracles.

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

All GreenlandAI tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?