Skip to main content
Glama

Get Earnings

get_earnings

Get earnings breakdown by pool: total earned, pending payout, paid out. Optionally filter by date range.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_earnings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endDateNoEnd date (ISO 8601)
startDateNoStart date (ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-01-01)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / endDate / maxLength
      Added value: +30
    • addedInput schema / properties / startDate / maxLength
      Added value: +30
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole burden; 'Get' does signal a read operation and the breakdown fields hint at the response shape. However, it does not state whether all pools are returned or only ones with activity, what happens when no date range is given (all-time?), or whether any auth/permission is required.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core capability front-loaded ahead of the optional filtering note.

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?

For a simple two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned breakdown and the filtering behavior well enough to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is default scope when no dates are supplied.

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% and both parameters already carry ISO 8601 descriptions with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only confirms that the date range is optional and filters the result, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 (get) and resource (earnings) and enumerates the breakdown fields returned: total earned, pending payout, paid out. It implicitly contrasts with the write-side sibling withdraw_earnings, but never names any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'Optionally filter by date range' gives the agent a cue about when to supply dates, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when NOT to use it, and no pointer to withdraw_earnings as the action-taking alternative.

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.