Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentProof

by com.agentproofchain
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

omega_edge_feed

Read-only

Proof-of-Edge: the signed, hash-chained, Bitcoin-anchored record of every trade the Omega/PumpSniper bots close, paper AND live (each row labelled; paper = simulated, no money). Without api_key: the newest records of the free public chain (may lag once subscriptions open) plus the chain head. With a subscriber api_key: every record as soon as it is chained. Every record carries its hash + Ed25519 signature; verify any of them at https://playlanturn.com/edge/. Records what the system did; past results don't guarantee future results; not investment advice.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "omega_edge_feed"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nNohow many records (default 10)
modeNolive money only, paper only, or all (default)
sinceNoonly records after this seq (for polling)
api_keyNooptional Proof-of-Edge subscriber key (edge_...) for the live feed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries the rest and does well: it discloses the lag behavior on the public chain, the auth requirement for a subscriber key, that rows are labelled paper vs live, and that each record carries a hash plus Ed25519 signature. It stops short of describing pagination or the exact response shape, but the important behavioral context is present.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core scoping and access-model sentences are front-loaded and earn their place, but the trailing risk disclaimer ('past results don't guarantee future results; not investment advice') is compliance boilerplate that does nothing to help an agent select or invoke the tool.

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?

For a read-only feed with no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it conveys what a record contains (paper/live label, hash, signature), what the free tier returns (newest records plus chain head), and where to verify a record. An agent could call this correctly without further information.

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 all four parameters already have documented meaning (defaults, enum values, polling semantics). The description adds only the conceptual distinction between the free public feed and the subscriber feed, which is useful but not parameter-level detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names the resource specifically ('the signed, hash-chained, Bitcoin-anchored record of every trade the Omega/PumpSniper bots close') and scopes it to paper and live rows with each labelled. The retrieval verb is implicit rather than stated, and it never names the sibling verify_log, so differentiation from that tool is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It clearly explains the api_key/no-api_key split (free public chain may lag; subscriber feed is real-time) and the schema notes `since` is for polling. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance and points verification to an external URL rather than routing to the verify_log sibling.

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

All AgentProof toolsInspect
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