Skip to main content
Glama

Get the message to sign

trnch_register_message
Read-onlyIdempotent

Step 1 of 2 to get an API key, no browser. Returns { message }: the exact text your wallet must sign with personal_sign (EIP-191). It is valid for 10 minutes and moves no funds.

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>"
    },
    "name": "trnch_register_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletYesThe agent wallet that will trade (EOA or EIP-1271 smart wallet).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and closed-world safety, and the description adds real extra context: the 10-minute validity of the message and the assurance that this step moves no funds. It also pins the exact signing standard (personal_sign / EIP-191) and return shape. Missing only what happens on expiry or replay.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the workflow position and return shape, with no filler. Every clause (step count, no browser, 10 minutes, no funds) carries 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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description says exactly what comes back ({ message }) and what to do with it. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% — the wallet parameter documents the 0x address pattern and the EOA vs EIP-1271 distinction. The description adds nothing about the wallet argument, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (get/register the message to sign) and frames it as "Step 1 of 2 to get an API key", which positions it against the register/confirm siblings. It never names the actual step-2 tool (trnch_register), so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

"Step 1 of 2 to get an API key, no browser" gives clear context for when this is the right entry point and hints at an alternative browser flow. It stops short of telling the agent what to call next or what to do if the 10-minute window lapses, so the flow guidance is incomplete.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources