Skip to main content
Glama

warda

by io.github.ArtyKOMarkets

Build a payment for me to sign

warda_build_spend

Assemble an unsigned Kaspa transaction that spends from this grant, and return the digest to sign. THIS SERVER NEVER SEES YOUR KEY and never signs: it hands back bytes, and you sign the digest wherever your key lives. It also returns the advisory verdict, but it builds the transaction either way — a local rule that is too strict must not be able to block a payment the chain would accept. If the verdict says refused, broadcasting will cost a fee and fail.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
utxoYesThe grant's CURRENT UTXO. Its address moves after every spend, so a stale one will not be found.
grantYesThe grant, as issued by the principal.
daaScoreYesCurrent DAA score of the chain.
feeSompiNoDefaults to 1000000. A spend carries a ~3KB redeem script, so its mass is dominated by size.
amountKasYesAmount to pay, in KAS.
recipientYesPayee public key, 32 bytes of hex. Must be on the allowlist.
computeBudgetNoDefaults to 16. Charged as mass, so over-provisioning costs money and under-provisioning is rejected outright.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it explicitly states the server never sees the key, never signs, returns a digest for local signing, returns an advisory verdict but builds regardless, and warns that broadcasting a refused verdict will fail and cost a fee. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before calling.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: first sentence states the operation and result, second addresses the critical security boundary, third explains the advisory verdict and consequences. The most important action is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for invoking the tool: what is built, what is returned, and the failure consequences. Minor completeness gaps remain, such as not describing the shape of the returned digest/verdict or the need for a current UTXO, though the schema covers the UTXO requirement and there is no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters; the description adds no field-level meaning beyond that baseline. It says nothing about how to format values or how parameters relate to the returned digest, so the score stays at the baseline.

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?

The first sentence states a specific verb ('Assemble'), a concrete resource ('unsigned Kaspa transaction that spends from this grant'), and the primary result ('return the digest to sign'). This clearly separates it from sibling build tools such as delegation, exit, and settlement, since the action is specifically spending from a grant as a payment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use it: whenever a payment from a grant needs to be built and signed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, despite the presence of eight sibling tools, and it never says 'use this instead of check_spend/build_settlement'; the guidance is more implicit than directive.

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

All warda toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: build_* assembles different transaction types, check_* validates proposals, grant_* derives or reports grant state, and recover_grant restores state from chain data. Even the similar-looking exit and settlement are clearly separated by destination: principal versus parent budget.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is mostly consistent with a warda_<verb>_<noun> pattern, e.g. build_delegation, check_spend, recover_grant. Two tools, grant_address and grant_authority, are noun phrases rather than verb_noun, so the pattern is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a distinct part of the grant lifecycle: building, checking, querying, settling, exiting, and recovering. There is no obvious redundancy or unnecessary surface area.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core lifecycle well: delegation, spending, settlement, exit/revoke, address derivation, authority checks, and recovery. The main gap is that advisory checking is provided for spend and delegation but not for exit or settlement, so the validity of those operations must be worked around via covenant behavior or other tools.

Resources