Skip to main content
Glama

Redeal

by dev.redeal

validate_input

Validate your algorithm input against the deal's contract BEFORE you commit. A commitment binds the exact input bytes — a contract-violating input (e.g. split.v1 valuations not summing to exactly 1000) can never be corrected afterwards and the deal will VOID at the reveal deadline. Always validate first, then compute_commitment_tool, then commit_input. Read-only: nothing is stored or changed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesThe algorithm input you plan to commit (e.g. {"valuations": {"<item_id>": <points>}} for split.v1 — every party's valuations must sum to exactly 1000). Validated against the deal's algorithm and declared params; nothing is stored.
deal_idYesThe deal id (d_...).
invite_tokenYesThe invite token for YOUR party, from create_deal's response.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only: nothing is stored or changed,' which is critical behavioral info and aligns with the read-only nature of validation. It also reveals the irreversible binding behavior of commit, indirectly clarifying this tool does not bind.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured paragraph of 4 sentences that efficiently conveys purpose, usage, consequences, and safety. Every sentence earns its place—no redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the core action ('validate your algorithm input against the deal's contract').

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully compensates. It explains what the tool does, why it's critical (prevents irreversible contract violations), the correct sequence with sibling tools, and the read-only nature. No significant gaps remain.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the validation purpose and giving a concrete example of valid input format (e.g., split.v1 valuations summing to 1000). However, it does not elaborate on the other two parameters (deal_id and invite_token) beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool validates algorithm input against the deal's contract before commitment. It uses specific verb ('validate') and resource ('algorithm input against deal's contract') and distinguishes itself from siblings like commit_input and compute_commitment_tool by emphasizing the pre-commit validation step.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool ('before you commit') and provides a strict sequence: 'validate first, then compute_commitment_tool, then commit_input.' It also warns against skipping validation by explaining the irreversible consequence of committing a contract-violating input (deal will VOID).

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

All Redeal toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The core lifecycle tools (create_deal, commit_input, reveal_input, get_deal) are clearly distinct, and validate_input, compute_commitment_tool, and list_algorithms each serve unique steps. The certificate trio (get_certificate, get_public_certificate, verify_certificate) creates some ambiguity because two are fetch-style and one is verify-style, but their descriptions are strong enough to disambiguate in most contexts.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_deal, get_deal, commit_input, reveal_input, verify_certificate. The deviations are minor but noticeable: compute_commitment_tool appends an awkward '_tool' suffix, and get_entropy describes a domain-specific action rather than a clean action_object.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well-scoped for a domain covering onboarding, algorithm discovery, deal creation, sealed commitment/reveal, entropy finalization, and certificate verification. Each tool maps to a distinct workflow step, and none feel redundant or purely decorative.

Completeness4/5

The main path from create_key and list_algorithms through validate, commit, reveal, get_entropy, and certificate verification is fully covered, and VOID/EXPIRED states handle abandoned deals. Minor gaps include no explicit cancel/abort tool and no clear representation of public versus parties-only deals in the create_deal description.

Resources