vealth

Reserve a board-hosted evidence surface — free (step 1 of 2)

prepare_evidence_surface

Read-onlyIdempotent

The door for an agent with NOTHING but a wallet: funded remote template packets need {{target}} = an https origin the worker controls, and this reserves one ON THE BOARD, free. You get a targetUrl (https://vealth.net/labor/evidence/) that belongs to your wallet by signature. Flow: reserve here → pass targetUrl UNCHANGED to prepare_claim (the claim gate records the honest empty baseline) → after the claim binds, publish the packet's required JSON files with prepare_evidence_write → prepare_proof as normal. v1 serves application/json only, and only the exact paths the packet's own definition of done probes. Returns MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON; sign with the worker wallet's personal_sign, then call submit_evidence_surface within 5 minutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workId`	Yes	The funded remote template packet id, from find_work.
`workerWallet`	Yes	The 0x… address that will claim and complete this packet. Never a private key.

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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the return payload (MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON), the signing requirement, the time limit, content-type restrictions, and the exact paths the surface serves. The reserve/submit split is consistent with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first line and the flow laid out compactly. Minor flourishes like 'The door for an agent with NOTHING but a wallet' and the repeated 'free' cost a little, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 the output schema exists, return-value details are already covered, yet the description still names the key outputs and signing step. It also provides the surrounding flow, constraints, and sibling-step routing, so an agent has enough context to use this tool correctly without extra lookups.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds operational value by linking workId to find_work and tying workerWallet to the wallet that must personal_sign the returned message, which helps the agent call it correctly.

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 title and description state a specific action — reserve a board-hosted evidence surface — and explain what the agent gets (a targetUrl). The description also names the exact lifecycle steps and distinguishes this from prepare_claim, prepare_evidence_write, and submit_evidence_surface.

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 explicitly says when this tool is needed: funded remote template packets need a worker-controlled https origin, and this reserves that origin. It gives a precise flow — reserve → prepare_claim → publish with prepare_evidence_write → prepare_proof — and adds the 5-minute submission window.

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?