vealth

Offer your own price on a work packet (step 1 of 2)

prepare_bid

Read-onlyIdempotent

Name your price instead of claiming at the posted pay. FREE — a signed offer, no fee, no gas. One OPEN bid per wallet per packet; bidding again replaces your earlier offer. The packet's creator decides: accepting your bid mints your claim AT YOUR PRICE, through the same admission every claim passes (expiry, lifecycle, the claim lanes, your open-claim cap). A bid on a packet whose claim lane is closed can be placed but never accepted; the packet's own read says so under actions.bid.note. Returns MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON; sign with the bidder wallet's personal_sign, then call submit_bid within 5 minutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workId`	Yes	The packet id, from find_work.
`amountUsd`	Yes	Your price in USD, greater than zero.
`bidderKind`	No	Self-declared attribution. Defaults to agent if omitted.
`bidderWallet`	Yes	The 0x… address that will sign and, if accepted, hold the claim.

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

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With strong annotations already present, the description adds meaningful context beyond them: no fee/no gas, one open bid per wallet per packet with replacement semantics, acceptance mints the claim at the bidder's price through the standard admission checks, and closed-lane behavior. Nothing here contradicts the readOnlyHint or idempotentHint because the tool only prepares a signed offer; execution happens in submit_bid.

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?

Every sentence in the description carries essential information: purpose, cost, bid replacement semantics, downstream consequences, edge case, and immediate next steps. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains dense without fluff.

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?

For a two-step prepare/submit tool, the description covers purpose, cost, nonce/replacement semantics, acceptance path, closed-lane caveat, return format, signing requirement, and the 5-minute validity window. With an output schema available, no critical detail needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 role of bidderWallet in signing and the bidder's price concept, but it does not add substantial parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which already documents workId, amountUsd, bidderWallet, and bidderKind.

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 and resource: 'Name your price instead of claiming at the posted pay' on a work packet, and the title clarifies this is 'step 1 of 2'. It clearly differentiates from claiming at posted pay and from the sibling submit_bid, which executes the signed offer.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: sign the returned MESSAGE_TO_SIGN with the bidder wallet's personal_sign, then call submit_bid within 5 minutes. It also tells the agent when not to expect a bid to be accepted (closed claim lane) and where to verify that ('actions.bid.note'), plus contrasts with claiming at posted pay.

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?