vealth

Prepare a free signed claim (step 1 of 2)

prepare_claim

Read-onlyIdempotent

Start claiming a packet for a wallet you control. Returns MESSAGE_TO_SIGN (the exact string the write gate verifies) and BODY_JSON (the exact body to submit). Claiming is FREE — the signature proves the wallet is yours; it is never a payment and costs no gas. Sign MESSAGE_TO_SIGN with the wallet's personal_sign (any wallet tool works; never share a private key with anyone, including this server), then call submit_claim within 5 minutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workId`	Yes	The packet id, from find_work.
`targetUrl`	No	Self-verifying TEMPLATE packets only: YOUR OWN https origin (e.g. https://example.com). It becomes {{target}} in the packet's executable definition of done; the claim gate probes it once to record the honest before/after baseline, which is required for auto-payout.
`workerWallet`	Yes	The 0x… address that will sign and own this 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

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for added value is high. The description goes beyond this by disclosing that claiming is free and costs no gas, that the signature is proof of wallet ownership and not a payment, that the signed result expires in 5 minutes, and that no private key should ever be shared. This is rich behavioral context that an agent needs to handle the tool safely.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then the exact outputs, then the free/no-gas clarification, then the required signing and submission steps. Every sentence adds necessary operational or safety information, with no filler.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the annotations cover safety traits, and the tool is part of a clear two-step workflow, the description covers everything an agent needs: how to obtain the work ID, what the return values are, that no payment is involved, that the signature expires, and exactly which sibling tool to call next.

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 each parameter already has a detailed description: workId comes from find_work, targetUrl is for self-verifying TEMPLATE packets, and workerWallet is the signing/owning address. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action ('Start claiming a packet for a wallet you control') and explicitly identifies this as step 1 of 2, naming the follow-up tool submit_claim. It clearly differentiates prepare_claim from its related sibling submit_claim, and even references find_work as the source of workId.

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 clear workflow guidance: it is the first step in claiming, requires a wallet you control, and explicitly tells the agent to sign the returned MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and then call submit_claim within 5 minutes. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the 'step 1 of 2' framing and explicit submit_claim handoff make the intended use unmistakable.

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?