Skip to main content
Glama

MolTrust MCP Server

by io.github.MoltyCel
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

mt_fantasy_commit

Commit a fantasy lineup with a SHA-256 hash anchored on Base L2.

Creates a FantasyLineupCredential (W3C VC) proving the lineup was
locked before contest start. The commitment hash is tamper-proof.

Args:
    agent_did: Agent DID (e.g. "did:moltrust:a1b2c3d4e5f67890")
    contest_id: Unique contest identifier (e.g. "dk-nfl-sun-main-2026w12")
    platform: Platform name: draftkings, fanduel, yahoo, sleeper, custom
    sport: Sport type: nfl, nba, mlb, nhl, pga, nascar, soccer, custom
    contest_start_iso: Contest start time in ISO 8601 (must be in the future)
    lineup_json: JSON string of lineup object (e.g. '{"QB":"Mahomes","RB1":"Henry"}')
    projected_score: Agent's projected score for this lineup
    confidence: Confidence level 0.0 to 1.0
    entry_fee_usd: Contest entry fee in USD
    contest_type: Contest type (e.g. "classic", "showdown")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sportYes
platformYes
agent_didYes
confidenceNo
contest_idYes
lineup_jsonYes
contest_typeNoclassic
entry_fee_usdNo
projected_scoreNo
contest_start_isoYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions SHA-256, tamper-proof, and 'anchored on Base L2', implying an on-chain write operation. However, it fails to disclose critical side effects such as irreversibility, potential network fees, or the need for a funded wallet. For a commitment that likely creates a permanent record, this is a significant omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured with an Args section and front-loads the core purpose. It is moderately long due to the 10 parameters, but each line earns its place by providing examples or constraints. It could be tightened, but given the parameter count, it is appropriately sized.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, return values are covered. However, the description misses operational context such as whether a wallet is required, if the operation is irreversible, or if there are fees. These are relevant for an on-chain commitment. It also doesn't mention verification via mt_fantasy_verify. Given the complexity and the blockchain aspect, some critical context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: it lists all 10 parameters with examples (e.g., agent_did, contest_id, lineup_json), specifies allowed values for platform and sport, and notes constraints like contest_start_iso must be in the future. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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?

The description clearly states the action (commit a fantasy lineup) and the resource (fantasy lineup), with specific details about SHA-256 hashing and W3C VC creation. It differentiates from siblings like mt_fantasy_verify and mt_fantasy_history by focusing on the commitment action, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from other tools.

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 (before contest start to lock a lineup) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given siblings like mt_fantasy_verify and mt_fantasy_history, the description lacks explicit routing guidance. The context is clear but there are no exclusions or comparisons.

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

All MolTrust MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources