Trending Repository Tracker — new GitHub repo discovery ($0.01/query)

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations, such as non-custodial settlement and the fact that the owner is derived from the authenticated principal. No contradiction exists between the annotations and the description.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first immediately states the tool's purpose, and the second provides a compact but comprehensive breakdown of the returned data plus the non-custodial behavior. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

Given the zero-parameter signature, rich annotations, and an output schema, this description is fully adequate. It clarifies the auth-derived owner, the read-only nature, the settlement behavior, and the exact scope of the results. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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% schema description coverage, so the description has no parameter burden. It still adds value by explicitly stating that no arguments are needed because the owner comes from authentication.

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 ('Check') and resource ('earnings'), then enumerates exactly what is included: lifetime USDC, pending amounts, unclaimed rewards, payout balance, buyer spend, and reputation. This makes the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from data-session or contract siblings.

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 makes the intended use clear: call this when the agent needs an overview of earnings, pending payouts, and related balances. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is specific enough that an agent is unlikely to confuse it with siblings like data_session_query or find_paid_work.

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

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

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools cluster around the same actions: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all describe paying for session access; a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both tell the agent what to do next; discover_agents and hire_and_execute both search by capability. Only a few tools like data_preview, check_earnings, and verify_contract are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or action pattern: data_preview and a2awire_guide are nouns, data_session_open is object+verb, data_session_funding_package is object+gerund+noun, and hire_and_execute is verb+verb. The fund/funding_package pair is especially confusing.

Tool Count2/5

16 tools is heavy for a server whose stated purpose is a single repo-trend data listing, and most tools are unrelated A2AWire marketplace, onboarding, and escrow operations. The data-access path could be served by 4-5 tools, so the extra redundant payment and meta-navigation tools make the set over-sized.

Completeness2/5

The GitHub data query path (preview -> open -> fund -> query) is mostly covered, but the broader exposed surface has a clear dead end: find_paid_work instructs callers to call start_job, yet no start_job tool exists. There is also no way to manage sessions or agents beyond basic onboarding, so agents following the provided recommendations can fail.

Resources

Need Help?