Skip to main content
Glama

Reputation claim check

wever_reputation-claim-check
Read-only

Agent Reputation: submit one reputation claim made to a buyer or principal, such as a success rate, a job count, completed jobs, an average rating, a dispute rate or an on-time rate, with its claimed figure, the time window it states, the job categories it says it leaves out (failed, partial, cancelled, refunded or disputed), the number of jobs it says it counts, who it was made to and when, together with the underlying record entry by entry: each entry’s date, outcome, rating, whether it was on time and whether it was disputed. The signed report recomputes the figure from the record over the stated window with only the named exclusions, and when it differs tries every set of unnamed job categories and then the whole history, smallest set first, so it names a figure the record does not give, jobs the claim quietly excludes with the categories and counts that reproduce it, a figure that holds only outside the stated window and a stated job count that differs, then no window, a window the record does not reach back to, undated entries and a rate or average with no job count behind it, with the fix for each. A claim against supplied evidence text is wever_claim-evidence-check, a benchmark claim against its cited source is wever_benchmark-evidence-check and an evaluation’s claims against its measured results are wever_evaluation-result-check. Verdict claim_unsupported, claim_gaps, claim_unverified or claim_supported. POST /api/reputation-claim-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-reputation-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-reputation/.

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": {
      "claim": "<claim>",
      "record": "<record>"
    },
    "name": "wever_reputation-claim-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYes
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
recordYesThe underlying record, entry by entry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses auth requirements ('Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route'), pricing and quota ('0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days'), the read-only scope in concrete terms, and that the output carries an Ed25519 signed receipt. It also describes the analytical fallback ladder the report runs, which is behavior an agent could not infer from the annotations.

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 content is dense and mostly earns its place, but the opening sentence is an extremely long unbroken clause chain and the recomputation paragraph is a single sprawling sentence enumerating six fallback outcomes. It is front-loaded with purpose but difficult to scan, and the negative-action list ('no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write') is more verbose than needed given openWorldHint=false.

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 nested three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what goes in, what the report does, the verdict vocabulary (claim_unsupported, claim_gaps, claim_unverified, claim_supported), the signed-receipt return, and pointers to the contract and human page. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be missing.

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 67%, and the description compensates by mapping each element to its role: the claimed figure, the stated window, the named exclusions (failed, partial, cancelled, refunded, disputed), the stated job count, made_to and made_at, plus per-entry record fields (date, outcome, rating, on-time, disputed). Only the optional 'label' parameter goes unmentioned, and the semantics of how exclusions drive the recomputation are spelled out rather than left to the schema.

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 states a concrete verb and resource ('submit one reputation claim made to a buyer or principal... with the underlying record') and enumerates the claim shapes it handles (success rate, job count, average rating, dispute rate, on-time rate). It also names the three closest sibling checks and the distinct kind of claim each covers, so the agent can separate this tool from them without opening schemas.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away to alternatives: 'A claim against supplied evidence text is wever_claim-evidence-check, a benchmark claim against its cited source is wever_benchmark-evidence-check and an evaluation's claims against its measured results are wever_evaluation-result-check.' Combined with the defined scenario (a claim plus the underlying record), the selection condition is unambiguous.

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