vealth

The hour card for a packet

hour_card

Read-onlyIdempotent

The ONE document to read to a person before they start: what the place is and the circle every GPS fix must land inside, what to bring and what the safety notes say, the method steps in order, the proof to hand in as a checklist, what the land gets, what the worker gets and whether the pay is funded or only proposed, exactly what the record will hold about them, and the tool calls in order. Free, keyless, no wallet needed. The packet's own words are carried verbatim and never shortened. Read it to them in order rather than summarising it: the order is the order the hour runs in. Optionally in Swahili (lang: "sw"): the board's own sentences translate from a fixed dictionary, and the packet's own words translate only where a translation exists for that packet, tagged "(Kiingereza)" and counted in coverage where it does not; a safety-critical line always carries its English source on its own line too. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Optional, defaults to "en". "sw" reads the card in Swahili.
`workId`	Yes	The packet id, from find_work or place_status.

Output 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / lang

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional, defaults to \"en\". \"sw\" reads the card in Swahili.",
+  "enum": [
+    "en",
+    "sw"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedSep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description adds substantive behavioral facts: free and keyless with no wallet and nothing to sign, content carried verbatim and never shortened, ordering semantics tied to how the hour runs, and detailed Swahili fallback behavior (fixed dictionary for board sentences, per-packet translations only, '(Kiingereza)' tagging, coverage counting, safety-critical lines always carrying the English source). These are exactly the traits annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence front-loads the purpose well and the enumerated contents are informative, but the text is dense and run-on. It also repeats itself: 'Free, keyless, no wallet needed' near the start and 'Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign' at the end say the same thing twice, which costs it conciseness points.

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, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the things that matter: what the card contains, reading order, auth/cost, and localization edge cases. The one gap is relational — it doesn't clarify how this document differs from the other card/packet tools in the sibling set.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description genuinely adds meaning for lang='sw' — what actually translates, how gaps are tagged and counted in `coverage`, and the safety-line rule — which goes well beyond the schema's 'reads the card in Swahili'. workId gains no extra semantic depth, but the localization detail is substantial.

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 makes clear this is a document-retrieval tool: 'the ONE document to read to a person before they start', and it enumerates the card's sections (place, circle, safety notes, method steps, proof checklist, pay/record, tool calls). That is specific enough to distinguish it as a pre-start briefing read. However, it never names siblings like day_card or get_work_packet, so an agent must infer on its own why it would pick hour_card over those near-identical-sounding documents.

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?

Usage is implied ('read to a person before they start', 'read it to them in order rather than summarising it'), which is real guidance for how to consume the output but not for when to call this tool versus day_card/get_work_packet. There are no exclusions or alternative-selection rules, and the pointer to find_work/place_status only appears in the schema's workId description.

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

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

Need Help?