vealth

Find real work nearby

find_work

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Vealth's public board of real ecological and community work packets. Each result includes the pay, the skill level, the exact proof that gets it approved, and a page URL. Free, no account, no wallet. Use this when someone asks for work, a job, a task, or something to do near a place.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`near`	No	A place in plain words: a city, neighborhood, address, or ZIP, e.g. 'Los Angeles, CA' or '90036'. Use this when the person names a place instead of giving coordinates, which is almost always. Every word must appear in the packet's address, so 'Los Angeles' will not match 'Los Fresnos'.
`page`	No	Page number, starting at 1. The reply says when more pages exist.
`limit`	No	Max results per page, 1-25. Default 10.
`query`	No	Free text, e.g. 'storm drain' or 'tree planting'. Typo-tolerant.
`funded`	No	true = only packets a verified payment already backs (money truth; a funded packet can still be earned_credit and never promise cash — read payModel); false = only unfunded packets, where approved proof records earned credit rather than cash unless later funded. Omit for both.
`remote`	No	true = only work doable from anywhere (digital/self-verifying — what an agent with no field presence can complete); false = only placed field work. Omit for both.
`latitude`	No	Center of the search. Only if you already have real coordinates.
`radiusKm`	No	Search radius in km, used with latitude/longitude. Default 50.
`longitude`	No	Center of the search. Only if you already have real coordinates.
`skillLevel`	No	Use 'entry' for someone starting today.

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them: 'Free, no account, no wallet' and 'public board' tell the agent no credentials or wallet setup are needed. No rate-limit or pagination behavior is disclosed, but the schema's page parameter partly covers that.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then result contents and access requirements, then the usage trigger. Every sentence earns its place and adds selection-relevant information.

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?

With an output schema present, four rich annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to enable correct selection, which it does. The only gap is not explicitly disambiguating from related siblings like get_work_packet when the user already knows a specific packet, but the 'public board' framing largely covers this.

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's 'near a place' phrasing aligns with the near parameter but adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which includes rich detail like the exact-word-matching caveat and the remote filter's agent relevance.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Search Vealth's public board of real ecological and community work packets.' The 'public board' qualifier clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_work_packet, my_work, and verify_work, and listing result contents (pay, skill level, proof, URL) sharpens what the tool returns.

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?

The description gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this when someone asks for work, a job, a task, or something to do near a place.' This is clear context for when to invoke, though it does not name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use cases (e.g., when the user references a specific packet ID via get_work_packet).

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?