Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Reputation gaming check

wever_reputation-gaming-check

Read-only

Agent Reputation: submit one reputation system’s design: how identities are created, with what a new identity costs, what it proves (nothing, an email, a wallet, KYC, an attestation or a stake), where its score starts (zero, neutral, inherited, purchased or imported) and whether a score moves to another identity or can be sold; how ratings are earned, with who can rate (anyone, any account, a counterparty or a counterparty with settled work), whether a rating needs a settled job, the smallest job that earns one and how ratings are weighted; and what the design detects: pairs that rate each other, closed rating rings, raters funded from one source and an agent rated by its own operator or wallets. The signed report lists each gaming path as open or closed with what a rating costs to fake, and names a fresh identity starting with a borrowed or bought score, ratings from parties with no settled work behind them and review exchanges the design cannot see, then free identities, ratings that cost only the smallest job, unseen rating rings, unseen self-dealing or shared funding and unweighted ratings, with the fix for each. Headline payment numbers with no commerce behind them are wever_volume-quality-check, quoted endorsements against their source are wever_testimonial-evidence-check and one agent identity record’s consistency is wever_agent-identity-check. Verdict gameable, gaming_gaps, gaming_unverified or gaming_resistant. POST /api/reputation-gaming-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": {
      "identities": "<identities>",
      "ratings": "<ratings>"
    },
    "name": "wever_reputation-gaming-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`system`	No
`ratings`	Yes
`detection`	No
`identities`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, openWorld=false, destructive=false, and the description reinforces this with a concrete scope statement ('reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write'), which is genuinely additive. It also discloses pricing (0.10 USDC on Base via x402 exact), the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding requirement, and that the report carries an Ed25519 signed receipt — well beyond what the annotations provide. The main addition would be failure/payment-error behavior.

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 useful but delivered as one dense, unbroken block with long enumerated lists that repeat themselves — the list of gaming paths is stated once as report contents and a second time as 'then free identities, ratings that cost only the smallest job, unseen rating rings...'. The purpose and pricing are front-loaded, but the middle sections would read far better as structured bullets.

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 complex tool with nested objects, two required params, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it describes the report shape, the four verdict values, the routing to siblings, and payment/auth mechanics. Only the 'label'/'system.name' fields and error or partial-input behavior are left undocumented.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it maps the identities fields (creation cost, verification tiers, starting score options, transfer/sale), the ratings fields (who can rate, settled-job requirement, minimum job value, weighting), and all four detection flags in prose. The gaps are the 'label' and 'system.name' parameters, which are never mentioned, and the prose-to-field mapping requires inference since parameter names are not cited.

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 system's design' for a gaming check) and enumerates exactly which design dimensions are examined: identity creation cost, verification, starting score, transferability, rating eligibility, and detection coverage. It also names the three sibling checks it is NOT (wever_volume-quality-check, wever_testimonial-evidence-check, wever_agent-identity-check) with the condition that routes there.

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?

It gives clear usage context — one submission per reputation system design — and explicitly redirects three adjacent scenarios to their correct sibling tools, which is strong routing guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions against the other reputation siblings (decay, dispute, portability, source, record), leaving the agent to infer boundaries from name alone.

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

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails tools Inspect

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

Need Help?