Redeal

reveal_input

Reveal your committed input. It must hash to your earlier commitment. When the last party reveals, the deal computes and the fairness certificate is issued automatically — fetch it with get_certificate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`salt`	No	Your hex salt from commitment time. Omit (or empty) for open-mode deals.
`input`	Yes	Your algorithm input exactly as committed (any JSON value). split.v1: {"valuations": {...}} — your valuations must sum to exactly 1000; random.v1: {"nonce": "<hex>"}; shapley.v1: {"accept": true\|false}; auction.v1: {"bid": <integer>}.
`deal_id`	Yes	The deal id (d_...).
`invite_token`	Yes	The invite token for YOUR party, from create_deal's response.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional: retries with the same key + same arguments replay the original response.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly explains the behavioral effect: the deal computes and fairness certificate auto-issues when last party reveals. It mentions hash verification requirement, making the tool's side effects transparent. Could be improved by noting whether reveals are reversible or idempotent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences with zero waste. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: what the tool does, the verification requirement, and the downstream side effect with reference to sibling. Ideal length and front-loading of key information.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description ensures completeness by covering the tool's core action, its prerequisite (hash commitment), its side effect (auto-computation+certificate), and links to the certificate retrieval tool. The 5 parameters are all documented in the schema, and the description adds crucial semantic detail for the complex 'input' parameter.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by embedding protocol-specific format rules inside the 'input' parameter description (JSON structures for each algorithm version, valuation sum constraint). It also clarifies that 'salt' is optional for open-mode deals, which goes beyond the schema's generic type description.

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 uses a clear verb 'Reveal' and specific resource 'committed input', explicitly stating the hash verification requirement. It distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_input' and 'get_certificate' by describing the timing and downstream effect.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: when to use (must hash to earlier commitment, and after last reveal the certificate auto-issues). It references the alternative 'get_certificate' for fetching the certificate, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or exclude other siblings like 'commit_input'.

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

All Redeal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct role in the deal lifecycle: key creation, deal creation, algorithm listing, input validation, commitment computation, committing, revealing, entropy retrieval, certificate fetching, and certificate verification. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_deal, get_certificate, verify_certificate). The verbs and nouns are descriptive and match the tool's function. There is no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for the fairness deal domain. Each tool earns its place, covering onboarding, deal creation, input handling, execution, and verification without unnecessary redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: create key, create deal, inspect algorithms, validate inputs, compute commitments, commit, reveal, fetch entropy for random deals, retrieve certificates, and verify them. The main gap is a tool for counterparties to accept/join a deal using the invite token, but this may be handled outside the MCP server.

Resources

Need Help?