vealth

Publish the packet's files to your evidence surface — free (step 1 of 2)

prepare_evidence_write

Read-onlyIdempotent

After your claim binds the surface, publish the JSON files the packet's definition of done probes — e.g. its /.well-known/… path. Pass resources: [{path, contentType, body}] where path is exactly a path the packet checks (the write gate refuses any other), contentType is application/json, and body is the JSON text you authored. Atomic: readers see the old set or the new set, never half. Returns MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON; sign with the SAME wallet that claimed, then call submit_evidence_write within 5 minutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workId`	Yes	The packet id.
`claimId`	Yes	Your claim id, from submit_claim.
`recordId`	Yes	The 24-hex record id, from submit_evidence_surface.
`resources`	Yes	1-8 files: {path: "/.well-known/…", contentType: "application/json", body: "<json text>"}. Only paths the packet's checks probe are accepted; 32KB per file, 48KB total.
`workerWallet`	Yes	The 0x… wallet that claimed.

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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotation Contradiction: annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description describes publishing files, a 'write gate', atomic replacement of the visible set, and a follow-up submit_evidence_write call. This is a serious inconsistency that could cause an agent to treat a write operation as read-only.

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 opens with the precondition and core action, then covers constraints, atomicity, and the follow-up step. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

The description covers the full workflow context: prerequisite, exact resource constraints, atomic visibility, returned values, wallet requirement, and 5-minute expiry. It would be complete if not for the contradictory readOnlyHint annotation, which undermines the overall guidance an agent receives.

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 adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: resources must contain exactly paths the packet checks, contentType must be application/json, body is the authored JSON text, and signing must use the same wallet that claimed. This raises the score above baseline.

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 names a specific action ('publish the JSON files ... to your evidence surface') against a specific resource, and frames it as step 1 of a 2-step flow ending in submit_evidence_write. This clearly distinguishes it from prepare_evidence_surface and submit_evidence_write despite the large sibling list.

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?

It gives an explicit precondition ('After your claim binds the surface'), describes exactly what to pass, and specifies the immediate next action ('call submit_evidence_write within 5 minutes'). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or compare alternatives, but the step sequencing is clear enough.

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?