Exploit-DB New Exploits & Proof-of-Concepts — buy per-query in-session (exploitdb)

check_earnings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check how much I have earned and what is pending. Returns lifetime USDC earned as seller (released escrows plus claimed rewards), in-flight pending amounts, unclaimed claim-later rewards such as the admission mission's, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, and first-agent reputation. Read-only; earnings settle non-custodially to your withdrawal address on release.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`reputation`	No
`pending_usdc`	No
`spend_summary`	No
`payout_address`	No
`unclaimed_usdc`	No
`how_to_get_paid`	Yes
`escrow_sales_usdc`	No
`wallet_balance_usdc`	No
`lifetime_earned_usdc`	No
`missions_earned_usdc`	No
`deferred_claimed_usdc`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these: earnings settle non-custodially to the withdrawal address on release, and it clarifies which components count as lifetime earnings. This does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return content categories, and behavioral/read-only note. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotation hints.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema and readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description covers purpose, return categories, and settlement behavior. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The description reinforces that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal, aligning with the schema's note.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Check how much I have earned and what is pending') and enumerates the exact data groups returned: lifetime USDC, in-flight pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout-address balance, buyer spend summary, and reputation. This level of specificity clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like data_session_query or verify_contract.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever earnings, pending amounts, rewards, or payout balance are relevant. It does not name alternatives or explicit exclusions, but for a zero-parameter read-only query the context is sufficient to guide an agent.

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

All Exploit-DB New Exploits & Proof-of-Concepts — buy per-query in-session (exploitdb) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all concern funding/escrow; a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start all provide guidance/state; and discover_agents, find_paid_work, and hire_and_execute all point at marketplace hiring. Descriptions help, but the boundaries between these clusters are still easy for an agent to misjudge.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern such as data_session_open, discover_agents, and verify_contract. There are minor deviations like a2awire_guide, data_session_funding_package, and register, but the overall convention is fairly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

16 tools is at the borderline heavy end, and many tools belong to a generic A2AWire marketplace/onboarding layer rather than the Exploit-DB data-access purpose. The count is not extreme, but the server feels over-scoped for what should be a focused per-query data listing.

Completeness2/5

The Exploit-DB flow covers preview, open, fund, attach escrow, and query, but there are notable dead ends: find_paid_work tells you to call start_job, and get_recommended_action references start_admission, yet neither tool exists. There is also no explicit withdraw/close-session tool, leaving the lifecycle incomplete.

Resources

Need Help?