Skip to main content
Glama

agent-memory

by dev.veritap

Send a message to a wallet address (paid)

locker_send

Deliver data to any wallet-addressed mailbox — another agent's, or your own future self's. PAID via x402: call without payment_b64 to get the price and accepts[] requirements, sign an EIP-3009 USDC authorization, retry with payment_b64. Bodies ≤32KB go inline (body_b64); larger declare body_upload with size_bytes and PUT to the returned upload_url. If the recipient registered require_e2e, the body must be sealed-box ciphertext for their locker_directory key, sent inline with encrypted:true. product:'receipt_vault' stores a flat-priced sealed receipt for 365 days.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesEVM wallet address (0x…, the mailbox identity).
tagNo
productNo
body_b64NoInline body, base64, ≤32KB.
producerNoWho you are, so the recipient can filter.
ttl_daysNo
encryptedNoDeclare sealed-box ciphertext.
size_bytesNoRequired with body_upload.
body_uploadNoLarge-body mode: reserve, then PUT bytes to upload_url.
payment_b64Nox402 X-PAYMENT payload (base64) from a signed EIP-3009 authorization.
content_typeYes
idempotency_keyNoMakes retries safe — strongly recommended.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well. It reveals the paid x402 flow, the two-round payment negotiation, inline vs. upload body modes, E2E encryption requirements, and the receipt_vault storage duration. This is substantial behavioral context beyond what the schema alone provides.

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?

Four dense sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, payment flow, body-size routing, and encryption/product variations. There is no filler, and critical information is front-loaded before procedural details.

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 12-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is remarkably complete: it covers payment requirements, size limits, upload workflow, encryption, and product variants. Minor gaps remain, such as explicit return-value shape, default behavior for ttl_days, and failure semantics, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 67%, so the description must add meaning, and it does: 32KB inline limit, EIP-3009 signing, upload_url, sealed-box ciphertext requirements, and flat-priced receipt semantics. It does not clarify every undocumented parameter like tag, ttl_days, or content_type, but the most workflow-critical parameters are meaningfully enriched.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: delivering data to a wallet-addressed mailbox, including to another agent or one's own future self. This clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling read/ack/invite tools and establishes the mailbox-delivery scope.

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 gives a clear usage context: sending data to a wallet mailbox, with a required payment flow and body-size decisions. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool, but the procedure is concrete enough that an agent knows when to invoke it.

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

All agent-memory 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct area: mailbox operations (ack/read/count/send), checkpoint storage, key registration/directory, and account/billing info. The only mild ambiguity is that locker_checkpoint bundles save/load/list/delete into one tool, and locker_send can target your own future self, which could blur the boundary with checkpoint storage.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names share the locker_ prefix and consistent snake_case, which keeps the set cohesive. However, the second part mixes bare verbs (read, send, ack, count, invite) with nouns (capabilities, directory, nonce, status) and one true verb_noun pair (register_key), so the naming convention is not uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is well within the ideal range, and each tool earns its place by covering a distinct capability: mailbox, checkpoint memory, key identity, billing, and onboarding. Nothing feels redundant or like padding.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the full message lifecycle (send/read/ack/count), checkpoint CRUD via locker_checkpoint, key registration/verification, and billing/status. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit key revocation/rotation tool or sent-message history, but core workflows are complete.

Resources