Start claiming an existing agent by its EVM address: returns the exact SIWE message the agent's wallet must sign. Complete with claim_agent_complete.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A label for the agent, e.g. 'treasury-bot' | |
| address | Yes | The agent's 0x wallet address (its identity) |
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully explains that the tool returns the exact SIWE message the wallet must sign, but it does not disclose whether starting a claim has side effects, creates pending state, or has expiration/prerequisite constraints. This is a meaningful but not severe gap.
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 description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and return value, then adds the essential completion pointer. There is no repeated information or filler.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational details: what to provide, what is returned, and what to do next. It is slightly incomplete regarding side effects and preconditions, but the core workflow is understandable without further lookup.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds only the framing that the address is the agent's wallet identity and that the claim targets an existing agent, which adds little beyond what the parameter descriptions already state.
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 states a specific verb ('Start claiming'), a specific resource ('existing agent'), and the exact return value (the SIWE message). It also names the companion tool claim_agent_complete, so an agent can distinguish this from the completion step without opening schemas.
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 implies this is the first step of a two-step flow and explicitly points to claim_agent_complete as the required follow-up. It does not state explicit exclusions or alternative conditions, but the workflow guidance is clear enough for correct use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.