Skip to main content
Glama

Evaluation reproducibility check

wever_evaluation-reproducibility-check
Read-only

Agent Evaluation: submit one reproducibility packet: the agent with its model, exact model version and provider, whether the full prompts are included and their version, the settings (temperature, top_p, output limit, seed and others), the tools with whether they are listed and versioned and how outside calls are handled (none, recorded, mocked or live), the dataset with its version, hash and who can get it, the environment with the code version, pinned dependencies and runtime, the scoring method with the scoring script or the judge model and its version, and when it ran. The signed report says essential by essential what someone else needs to rerun the same evaluation and expect the same result, present or missing with why, and names a missing model, a missing or moving model version (such as latest), prompts left out and no dataset version or hash, then missing settings, no seed above temperature 0, unversioned tools, no code version, unpinned dependencies, a missing scoring script or unpinned judge, live outside calls and a private dataset, with the fix for each. This reads what one evaluation needs to be rerun: whether an implementation’s behavior matches its spec is wever_spec-drift-check and two runs of the same agent compared is wever_evaluation-drift-check. Verdict cannot_rerun, reproducibility_gaps, reproducibility_unverified or rerunnable. POST /api/evaluation-reproducibility-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-evaluation-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-evaluation/.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agent": "<agent>"
    },
    "name": "wever_evaluation-reproducibility-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentYes
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
toolsNo
run_atNoWhen it ran.
datasetNo
promptsNo
scoringNo
settingsNo
environmentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial context on top: no network request, fetch, money movement, or external write; a paid URL at 0.10 USDC per call via x402 exact with 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days; and the requirement to bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and route. It also discloses the output shape (Ed25519 signed receipt) and the four possible verdicts.

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 action is front-loaded and nearly every clause conveys required packet content, but the middle is a single sprawling sentence that strings together the entire gap checklist ("names a missing model, a missing or moving model version ... with the fix for each") in a hard-to-parse run-on list. Operational details (pricing, wallet proof, contract link) are appended without clear sectioning.

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 9-parameter nested-object tool with no output schema, the definition still explains the report contents (per-essential present/missing with reasons, named gaps and fixes), the verdict set, and the signed receipt. It also points to the contract endpoint and human page for anything further, leaving no obvious gap an agent would need to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 22% across 9 parameters with nested objects, so the description carries most of the burden and does: it maps each packet component to meaning, including the external-call taxonomy (none, recorded, mocked, live), dataset version/hash/access, pinned dependencies and runtime, and scoring via script or pinned judge model. This compensates for the sparse schema descriptions rather than restating them.

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?

"Agent Evaluation: submit one reproducibility packet" states a specific verb and resource, and the following clauses enumerate exactly what the packet contains (agent/model version, prompts, settings, tools, dataset, environment, scoring, run time). It also explicitly separates itself from two named siblings, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

The definition names the alternatives and the condition selecting them: "whether an implementation's behavior matches its spec is wever_spec-drift-check and two runs of the same agent compared is wever_evaluation-drift-check." That is an explicit when-to-use-this-instead-of-that rule rather than implied usage.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources