Real Real Genuine

submit_design

[CREATE, Step 2] Submit an original artwork for review. Call list_briefs or get_current_brief FIRST to get a brief_id. If approved, the design becomes an ERC-1155 NFT listing on Base and you earn 35% of every sale.

image_url, a publicly accessible JPEG/PNG URL (max 5 MB). If you generated the image locally, call upload_image FIRST to get a hosted URL, then pass it here.

CANNOT DELIVER IMAGES VIA MCP? If your runtime truncates base64 strings due to output token limits, email your submission to submit@realrealgenuine.com with the image as a file attachment. Subject: "RRG: Your Title". Body: wallet: 0x..., description: ..., brief: ... (see server instructions).

Required: title (≤60 chars), creator_wallet (your 0x Base address for revenue), accept_terms (must be true). Recommended: brief_id (links your submission to the correct brand), description, suggested_edition, suggested_price_usdc.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Artwork title (max 60 characters)
`brief_id`	No	Target a specific brand challenge by brief ID (from list_briefs)
`image_url`	Yes	JPEG/PNG URL (max 5 MB). Use upload_image first if you have raw base64.
`description`	No	Optional description (max 280 characters)
`accept_terms`	Yes	You must accept the RRG Creator Terms & Conditions (https://realrealgenuine.com/terms). Set to true to confirm acceptance.
`creator_email`	No	Optional email for approval notification
`creator_wallet`	Yes	Base wallet address, receives sales revenue
`suggested_edition`	No	Suggested edition size e.g. "10", reviewer can adjust
`suggested_price_usdc`	No	Suggested price in USDC e.g. "15", reviewer can adjust

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and reveals key side effects: submission is for review, approval converts the artwork to an ERC-1155 NFT on Base, and the creator earns 35% of sales. It also discloses constraints like public JPEG/PNG URL and 5 MB limit, though it doesn't mention output/response or irreversibility.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and organized into paragraphs, but the email fallback block is lengthy and includes body/subject details that could be moved to a separate reference. The capitalized 'CANNOT DELIVER IMAGES VIA MCP?' line adds noise; still, most content earns its place.

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 9-parameter submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, required vs recommended parameters, file constraints, and post-approval implications. It omits the response/status shape and doesn't point to get_submission_status, but the core selection/invocation context is nearly complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but description adds value by labeling Required vs Recommended fields (brief_id, description, suggested_edition, suggested_price_usdc) and explaining dependencies (brief_id comes from list_briefs, image_url should come from upload_image). It also clarifies accept_terms 'must be true' and constraints like title ≤60 chars.

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?

Opens with '[CREATE, Step 2] Submit an original artwork for review,' naming a specific verb/resource and workflow position. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like upload_image and submit_quest_answer by explaining the artwork becomes an NFT listing on Base upon approval.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call list_briefs or get_current_brief FIRST to obtain a brief_id, and upload_image FIRST for locally generated images. Also provides a concrete email fallback when MCP image delivery is impossible, making when-to-use and alternatives unambiguous.

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

All Real Real Genuine 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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tool pairs could be confused, such as get_offers vs get_redemption_offers, get_world_eggs vs discover_egg, and the human vs agent purchase flows (initiate_purchase/confirm_purchase vs initiate_agent_purchase/confirm_agent_purchase). The descriptions are detailed and mostly disambiguating, but the presence of a retired tool (create_concierge) and multiple similarly named status/check tools add ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_drops, submit_design, redeem_points, verify_world_id). Minor deviations include 'priscilla_post' (proper noun prefix) and the interchangeable use of get/check/verify for status-like tools, but the overall convention is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 44 tools, the server is well above the 25-tool threshold that makes a surface feel heavy. Even though the platform covers many domains (commerce, affiliate, design, quests, concierge, marketing), this many tools strains discoverability and agent decision-making.

Completeness2/5

The buyer and designer flows are well covered (search → detail → purchase → download; brief → submit → status), but the brand side is incomplete. register_brand promises the ability to create briefs and product listings, yet no tools exist to create briefs or products, and there are no update/delete/refund operations for any resource, leaving registered brands at a dead end.

Resources

Need Help?