vealth

What one wallet has voted on and backed

my_votes

Read-onlyIdempotent

One wallet's whole demand history: every packet it voted for or against, and every packet it pledged to back — both free, signed acts that move no money. Use this when someone asks what they voted for, whether their vote is still active, or what they have pledged. A pledge here is a signed statement of intent only: pledged is not funded, nothing moves and nothing is held until a real payment settles through the separate funding door (prepare_funding). Free, keyless, read-only, and it records nothing about the caller. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wallet`	Yes	The 0x… address that voted or pledged. The ADDRESS only, never a private key.

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.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / claimable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / notClaimableReason
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "claimId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "definitionOfDone": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "array",
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "fulfillableBy": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "funded": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "needs_from_caller": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "next_call": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payUsd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "proofRule": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "workId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety bar is pre-cleared. The description adds real value beyond them: pledges are intent only, nothing is held or moved until funding settles, and it records nothing about the caller. It does not describe result size or whether historical/withdrawn votes are included.

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?

Front-loaded and largely substantive, but the closing sentence "Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign" repeats the earlier "Free, keyless, read-only" clause and does not earn its place. The redundancy costs it a point despite otherwise tight phrasing.

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 and rich annotations, the description needn't explain return shape, and it covers the one semantic distinction an agent could misread: pledged ≠ funded. What it omits (pagination, whether withdrawn votes still appear) is minor given the structured fields.

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% and the single parameter already documents "0x… address only, never a private key." The description adds no format, casing, or normalization detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: one wallet's whole demand history, covering every packet voted for/against and every packet pledged to back. It is unambiguous about scope. It doesn't name a sibling (e.g., hydrex_votes, prepare_vote) to contrast against, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

"Use this when someone asks what they voted for, whether their vote is still active, or what they have pledged" gives concrete triggering conditions. It also implicitly routes funding questions elsewhere by noting payment settles through prepare_funding. No explicit when-not conditions or named read-alternatives are given.

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?