vealth

What this wallet has already paid, itemized

account_statement

Read-onlyIdempotent

One wallet's complete payment history with this server: every settled call, what it cost, which door it bought, and the on-chain hash that proves it — plus totals and a per-door breakdown. Use it when someone asks what they have spent here, whether a call was charged twice, or for an expense record. Each line settled from the caller's own wallet on a public chain, so every hash is independently verifiable without trusting this server. Free, keyless, read-only, and it stores nothing about anyone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Optional cap on payments returned (newest first).
`wallet`	Yes	The 0x… address that paid. The ADDRESS only, never a private key.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`tool`	No
`funded`	No
`payUsd`	No
`workId`	No
`claimId`	No
`claimable`	No
`next_call`	No
`proofRule`	No
`fulfillableBy`	No
`definitionOfDone`	No
`needs_from_caller`	No
`notClaimableReason`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses keyless access, that it stores nothing, that payments settle on a public chain, and that hashes are independently verifiable without trusting the server. This adds materially useful trust and privacy context for a financial-history tool.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core result, followed by usage triggers and trust/privacy context. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence contributes a distinct fact an agent needs.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is self-sufficient: it states the data returned, use cases, verification model, and access characteristics, while the output schema and 100% parameter coverage supply the remaining structure. There is no missing invocation-critical information.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'wallet' parameter by explaining the result is per-wallet payment history, but it adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, and 'limit' behavior is already documented in the schema.

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 a specific and complete statement: 'One wallet's complete payment history with this server', and enumerates exact contents (settled calls, cost, door, on-chain hash, totals, per-door breakdown). This sharply distinguishes it from the many payment and submission siblings in the tool list.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: 'Use it when someone asks what they have spent here, whether a call was charged twice, or for an expense record.' It does not name exclusion cases or sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough that an agent can select this over future-facing or action-oriented payment tools.

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

All vealth tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Despite 41 tools, each has a highly specific purpose with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate them. The prepare_/submit_ pairs, domain-specific prefixes (gmx_, regen_), and distinct action types (find, get, verify, etc.) leave little room for confusion. Even closely related tools like funding_quote and prepare_funding or my_work and my_votes are explicitly distinguished.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use plain nouns (account_statement, board_stats), others use verb_noun patterns (prepare_*, submit_*, get_*), possessive (my_votes, my_work), or descriptive phrases (how_to_claim, retire_and_certify). While not chaotic, the lack of a single consistent pattern reduces predictability. However, prefixes like gmx_ and regen_ provide internal consistency within subdomains.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the count significantly exceeds the recommended range (3-15) and falls into the 'too many' category (25+). Although the server covers a wide range of features (work lifecycle, Regen governance, GMX trading, anchoring, carbon), this number can overwhelm agents and make selection challenging. A more focused tool set would improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflows for its stated domains well: work posting/funding/claiming/proofing, Regen governance and token data, GMX position management, anchoring, and carbon estimation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no GMX order cancellation, no work deletion), but overall the surface is comprehensive enough to accomplish primary use cases without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?