Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Place a play-credit prediction

wever_second-date-bet

Idempotent

Place a YES or NO stake using free nonredeemable play credits with no cash value. Anyone with the market ID and a signed wallet may participate. Hard caps: 5 credits per bet and 25 credits per market. POST /api/second-date-bet. API access costs 0.10 USDC per call on Base mainnet using x402 exact, under the existing shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. This access fee is separate from play-credit stakes. Each wallet begins with 25 free play credits. X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binds the exact JSON arguments and API path. Human consent and reports use https://weverlabs.com/second-dates/. Betting closes at the deadline or first human report. Missing reports return stakes seven days after the close. Keep request_id and exact arguments for retry; use a new request_id for current status. Read /api/second-dates-contract for schemas and public receipt verification key.

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": {
      "market_id": "<market_id>",
      "side": "<side>",
      "amount_credits": "<amount_credits>",
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "wever_second-date-bet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`side`	Yes
`market_id`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes
`amount_credits`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses critical behavior: the 0.10 USDC x402 access fee, the shared 10-call free allowance, separate play-credit caps, wallet-proof binding, deadline/report closure, and seven-day refund behavior. These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before invoking a paid mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and the dense operational details are mostly necessary for this complex paid betting endpoint. It is long and somewhat run-on, but little is redundant.

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 paid, wallet-authenticated, non-idempotent-looking but annotated-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers auth, payment, caps, closure, retries, and external contract reference. It stops short of describing the success response shape, relying instead on the referenced contract.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It gives semantics for market_id, side, amount_credits caps, and request_id retry behavior, but it does not explain the string decimal format or the uniqueness requirements of request_id in detail.

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: place a YES or NO stake using free play credits. It clearly distinguishes this from a cash wager and gives the endpoint, so an agent knows exactly what action is being invoked.

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 states who may participate, the hard caps, the closing conditions, and the retry semantics. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as market-open or resolve, so it is strong but not complete on when-to-use versus alternatives.

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?