Skip to main content
Glama

Seneschal Data

by io.github.Rotwang9000
OverviewAdmin

Top up an existing watch by paying in Monero or Zcash (FREE to quote)

seneschal_private_watch_topup_crypto

Fund a Private Watch by paying in XMR or ZEC instead of USDC. Returns the FREE endpoint to call: POST /v1/private/topup-crypto issues a QUOTE — a receiving address, the exact coin amount to send (Monero: the amount carries a unique invoice tag; Zcash: a memo token), and a USD rate locked for a short window. Send the payment, then poll GET /v1/private/topup-crypto/{quoteId} (header x-watch-token) until status=settled. We detect the payment with the same view-key scanner the product sells and never hold a spend key. No x402, no API key — you pay in coin.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesWhich privacy coin you will pay in.
watchIdYesThe watchId returned from create.
watchTokenYesThe watchToken returned from create.
amountUsdCentsYesCredit to buy, in US cents (e.g. 500 = $5.00). Min/max enforced server-side; see the *_private_watch_info tool -> crypto_topup.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / amountUsdCents / description
      Previous value: -"Credit to buy, in US cents (e.g. 500 = $5.00). Min/max enforced server-side; see seneschal_private_watch_info -> crypto_topup."New value: +"Credit to buy, in US cents (e.g. 500 = $5.00). Min/max enforced server-side; see the *_private_watch_info tool -> crypto_topup."
    • changedInput schema / properties / watchId / description
      Previous value: -"The watchId returned from seneschal_private_watch_create."New value: +"The watchId returned from create."
    • changedInput schema / properties / watchToken / description
      Previous value: -"The watchToken returned from seneschal_private_watch_create."New value: +"The watchToken returned from create."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the quote mechanics (receiving address, exact coin amount, invoice tag/memo, locked USD rate), payment detection via a view-key scanner, that the tool never holds a spend key, and that no API key is required. This goes far beyond what a bare schema would convey.

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?

The description is dense but efficient: three sentences cover purpose, the quote flow with endpoint paths, polling status, and unique payment-detection benefits. Every sentence contributes essential information for invocation, and the most important distinction (XMR/ZEC instead of USDC) is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the absence of an output schema, and the lack of annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the quote returns, the polling sequence, and the authentication header. However, it omits details on quote expiry, over/underpayment handling, and error states, which are relevant for a payment tool, so a perfect score is not warranted.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by linking `chain` to invoice tag vs. memo token behavior and clarifying that `amountUsdCents` is the credit amount tied to a quote, plus directing users to the info tool for min/max constraints. This exceeds baseline without being redundant.

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 description opens with 'Fund a Private Watch by paying in XMR or ZEC instead of USDC,' giving a specific verb, resource, and payment method. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling `seneschal_private_watch_topup` tool, which presumably handles USDC top-ups.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'instead of USDC' to frame when this crypto variant is appropriate, and provides a complete usage workflow: request a quote, send the payment, then poll the status endpoint until settled. It also mentions 'No x402, no API key' and points to the info tool for min/max limits, giving the agent clear operational context.

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

All Seneschal Data 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.

Resources