Skip to main content
Glama

request_deposit

Request a deposit into a Gitbank vault. Returns a confirm_code the user must post on GitHub to authorize execution. Supported tokens: USDC, WETH.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesToken symbol: USDC or WETH
amountYesAmount to deposit
github_usernameYesGitHub username of the vault owner

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool is non-destructive but requires external authorization via GitHub. The openWorldHint annotation is aligned, and the two-step process is clearly communicated.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and return value. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Tool complexity is low with three parameters fully described. The description covers the main flow and return type. Minor gap: it doesn't mention prerequisites like vault existence, but the schema's github_username requirement implies it.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds only the supported token list, which is already partially in the schema. No additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Request a deposit into a Gitbank vault') and the return value ('Returns a confirm_code the user must post on GitHub to authorize execution'). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like request_withdraw and request_transfer.

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?

The description specifies supported tokens (USDC, WETH) and implicitly that this tool is for initiating deposits. However, it could explicitly contrast with related tools (e.g., request_withdraw) to provide stronger guidance.

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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: informational gets/lists, action-oriented requests with confirm_code, and a status checker. No two tools overlap in function; e.g., get_stock_price vs get_rwa_portfolio differentiate price vs holdings.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: get_ for retrieval, list_ for enumeration, request_ for actions requiring authorization, and check_ for status. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count5/5

16 tools cover the full scope of Gitbank's functionality—viewing balances, portfolios, prices, transactions, and initiating deposits, withdrawals, swaps, stock trades, bounty assignments, and token launches. The count is well-proportioned for a complex financial/project management server.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for querying and initiating actions, but lacks a tool to cancel pending requests or to directly confirm actions (confirmation happens externally via GitHub). Minor gap, but core workflows are supported.

Resources