Trnch on Elysium

Create an API key

trnch_register

Step 2 of 2: send the message returned in step 1 and its signature; returns { key, prefix, wallet } with status 201. The key is shown once, store it. The wallet must hold 10 USDC or 0.15 HYPE on Elysium (402 otherwise); 3 keys max per wallet (409); 400 if the signature or message does not match.

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": {
      "wallet": "<wallet>",
      "message": "<message>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "trnch_register"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	Optional name for the key, e.g. the agent name.
`wallet`	Yes	Same wallet as in trnch_register_message.
`message`	Yes	The message returned in step 1, unchanged.
`signature`	Yes	personal_sign signature of message by wallet.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds the material behavior: the key is returned once and cannot be re-read, a balance threshold is enforced with a 402, a 3-key-per-wallet cap returns 409, and mismatched signature/message returns 400. That is substantive context the annotations do not carry.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the step relationship and the return shape, then preconditions, then error codes. No restatement of the name or title and no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description names the return object and status code, and it covers the prerequisite step, balance requirement, per-wallet cap, and failure modes. For a 4-parameter registration call this is everything an agent needs before invoking it.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above it by tying failure semantics to specific fields ('400 if the signature or message does not match') and reinforcing that the message must be sent unchanged. It does not add anything about the optional label parameter, which is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an API key', 'Step 2 of 2: send the message...') and immediately distinguishes itself from the step-1 sibling by requiring that message plus its signature. An agent can tell exactly what this tool produces: a key, prefix, and wallet with status 201.

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?

Explicitly frames itself as step 2 of 2 with a dependency on the output of step 1, so when to use it is unambiguous. It also enumerates the blocking conditions (insufficient balance, key cap, signature mismatch) that tell the agent when a call will fail.

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

All Trnch on Elysium 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?