Complete an agent claim: verify the wallet signature over the message from claim_agent_start and equip the agent with a budgeted API key (default budget 50000 requests/month). Returns the key exactly once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The agent's 0x address (as in claim_agent_start) | |
| signature | Yes | 65-byte 0x signature of the exact message | |
| monthly_request_cap | No | Monthly budget; omit for the default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool verifies a signature, equips the agent with a key, applies a default budget, and—critically—returns the key exactly once. This is meaningful non-obvious behavior. It does not mention error cases or idempotency beyond 'exactly once,' but the key disclosure is strong.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is one efficient, front-loaded sentence. Every clause earns its place: the action, the prerequisite, the default budget, and the one-time return behavior. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description covers purpose, workflow position, signature requirements, default budget, and return behavior. It does not describe error handling or the exact response shape, but the core information an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, and the description adds value beyond the schema: it explains that the signature must be 65-byte and over the exact message from claim_agent_start, and that the default budget is 50000 requests/month. This enriches the address, signature, and monthly_request_cap parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Complete'), a concrete resource ('an agent claim'), and describes the two core actions: verifying the wallet signature and equipping the agent with a budgeted API key. It also references claim_agent_start, which clearly distinguishes this from the complementary start-step tool and from generic key-creation tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly situates this tool after claim_agent_start by referencing 'the message from claim_agent_start' and requiring the resulting signature. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite and workflow context are strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.