Skip to main content
Glama

BASE167

by com.base167

Set a Degen Games display name or X handle

base167_set_display_name

Set the display name or X handle shown next to a wallet on the boards.

This is the one action that needs a signature FROM THE USER'S OWN WALLET, so it runs in two steps:

  1. Call with address and name (or handle) and NO signature. The tool returns the exact message to sign and the expiry it was built with.

  2. Have the user sign that message byte for byte, then call again with the signature and the SAME expiry.

The message must match exactly or the answer is 401. Both plain wallets and smart contract wallets are accepted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name, up to 24 printable ASCII characters.
expiryNoThe expiry returned by step 1. Omit on step 1.
handleNoX handle without the @, up to 15 characters.
addressYesAn Ethereum address on Base mainnet, 0x followed by 40 hex characters.
signatureNoThe signature over the returned message. Omit on step 1.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the two-step signing protocol, the need to sign the returned message byte-for-byte, the requirement to reuse the exact same expiry, the 401 failure mode on mismatch, and support for both plain and smart contract wallets. This is exactly the non-obvious behavioral detail an agent needs.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, then uses numbered steps for the two calls, and closes with the error condition and wallet support. Every sentence carries useful information; there is no fluff.

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 mutation tool with no output string schema? Wait no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns on step 1 (the exact message and expiry), what to do with it, the failure mode, and wallet compatibility. An agent has enough to drive the full interaction correctly.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already document the key relationships: expiry must be the one returned in step 1, and signature is omitted on step 1. The description reinforces the workflow but adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: 'Set the display name or X handle shown next to a wallet on the boards.' This precisely identifies the action and its effect, and it is clearly distinct from the claim, enrollment, and leaderboard sibling tools.

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 when-to-use context and a precise two-step procedure: call without a signature, receive the message and expiry, then call again with the signed message and the same expiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is unique among the listed sibling tools.

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

All BASE167 toolsInspect
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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: checking eligibility, claiming the token, claiming the entry pass, claiming the winner badge, enrolling, reading season state, reading leaderboard, and setting a display name. The three claim tools are clearly differentiated by their object (token, pass, badge) and by their descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools share the base167_ prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: check_claim, claim_entry_pass, enroll_wallet, get_leaderboard, get_season, set_display_name. This makes the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a competition lifecycle: eligibility check, claim actions, enrollment, reads, and display-name management. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant or out of place.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full user journey for BASE167 Degen Games: eligibility check, token claim, entry pass claim, wallet enrollment, season/leaderboard reads, display name setting, and winner badge claim. The absence of a prize-withdrawal tool is intentional and documented, so it is not a gap.

Resources