StatePulse API

depositCoordinationBounty

Deposits a real USDC bounty on Base using EIP-3009 receiveWithAuthorization, locking it in the non-custodial EscrowRegistry contract. Matches: deposit onchain bounty, non-custodial escrow bounty, lock usdc bounty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`nonce`	Yes	Unique 32-byte hex nonce (0x...) for the EIP-3009 transfer
`title`	Yes	Bounty task title
`sender`	Yes	EVM address of the buyer/sender
`bounty_id`	Yes	Unique 32-byte hex ID representing this bounty
`signature`	Yes	Hex signature authorizing the USDC receiveWithAuthorization transfer
`description`	No	Bounty task details/description
`reward_usdc`	Yes	Bounty reward in USDC (e.g. 10.00)
`valid_before`	Yes	Unix timestamp after which the signature expires
`duration_days`	Yes	Number of days the bounty is locked for

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It mentions EIP-3009 and non-custodial escrow, but does not disclose gas costs, irreversibility, authorization requirements (beyond schema), or failure modes. A financial tool requires more disclosure.

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?

Two sentences: first states action and mechanism, second provides search keywords. No redundant words, front-loaded with key info. Efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite schema covering parameters, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, prerequisites like USDC allowance, return value). For a complex transaction tool, these gaps reduce completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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 does not add significant parameter meaning beyond the schema, only contextualizing signature/nonce via 'EIP-3009'. Minimal added value.

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 deposits a real USDC bounty on Base using EIP-3009, locking in a non-custodial contract. It also provides search keywords like 'deposit onchain bounty', making its purpose distinct from siblings like 'releaseCoordinationBounty'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description offers keywords (e.g., 'lock usdc bounty') hinting at use cases, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling list provides context, but the description itself lacks clear usage boundaries.

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

All StatePulse API 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

B3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping functionality, e.g., auditNetworkHost combines DNS, SSL, and header checks that have dedicated tools (auditDnsSecurity, checkSslExpiry, auditSecurityHeaders). Multiple weather and blockchain tools also overlap in scope, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., getAirQuality, checkDnsPropagation), but a few deviate (agentPreflight, capabilitiesDiff) and some use compound names (depositCoordinationBounty). Overall, the pattern is clear but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count1/5

With 56 tools, the server is far too large for a coherent MCP surface. The number suggests a collection of many unrelated APIs rather than a focused tool set. A typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools.

Completeness2/5

While the tool set covers many domains, each domain has shallow coverage. For example, blockchain tools miss basic transaction sending and contract deployment; weather tools lack forecasts. The 'requestMissingData' endpoint acknowledges gaps, but the current surface is severely incomplete for a general-purpose API.

Resources

Need Help?