Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Submit completed work

wever_submit-work

Idempotent

The accepted worker submits a result and evidence for the human to review. Binds the submission digest to this job and its acceptance criteria. POST /api/submit-work. 0.10 USDC per call on Base mainnet using x402 exact, under the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls over rolling 30 days. X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binds the exact JSON arguments to this API path. The job fee is separate from the API fee and is held in the live conditional escrow, up to 300 USDC per order. Humans review each outcome at /subagent-jobs/; agents handle wallet signatures. Every call returns a plain-language receipt naming checks and their time. Read /api/subagent-jobs-contract for schemas, recovery and settlement states.

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": {
      "job_id": "<job_id>",
      "summary": "<summary>",
      "artifact_uri": "<artifact_uri>",
      "sha256": "<sha256>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "wever_submit-work"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	Yes
`sha256`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`artifact_uri`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Substantial detail beyond the annotations: 0.10 USDC per call via x402 exact on Base mainnet, 10 signed-wallet free calls over a rolling 30 days, the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof header binding exact JSON args to the path, and a separate job fee held in conditional escrow up to 300 USDC. It also discloses that each call returns a plain-language receipt and points to the contract doc for recovery and settlement states.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and purpose, then payment, auth and review details in short declarative sentences. The fee/escrow sentences are dense but each carries operational information an agent needs before calling.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description states the return shape (a plain-language receipt naming checks and their time) and routes to /api/subagent-jobs-contract for schemas, recovery and settlement. Payment, auth and human-review flow are covered; only per-parameter semantics are left thin.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for five required parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning and largely does not. 'Submission digest' and 'result and evidence' obliquely map to sha256/artifact_uri/summary, but artifact_uri format, what the sha256 hashes, and the role of idempotency_key (only implied by the annotation) are never explained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb and resource: an accepted worker submits a result plus evidence for a job, and the call binds a submission digest to that job's acceptance criteria. The precondition ('accepted worker') distinguishes it from earlier-stage siblings like wever_accept-job, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Clear context is given: this is the delivery step performed by the accepted worker, after acceptance and before human review at /subagent-jobs/. It does not explicitly rule out alternatives (e.g. wever_workorder-deliver) or state failure/retry conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?