vealth

Get everything needed to actually pay for a packet

prepare_funding

Read-onlyIdempotent

Step 2 for a buyer: returns the live payment requirements for funding a packet — the onchain door's own x402 challenge (accepts[], exact amount, asset, chain, pay-to address) read from that door at this moment, and, when a card rail is mounted on this host, its hosted checkout URL. To chip in a slice instead of the whole remaining amount, pass the typed contributeUsd input and it is forwarded to the real door verbatim; omit it to pay everything the packet still needs (the canonical remaining amount, never a stale posted wage, and never an implicit premium). The door remains the authority on floors, ceilings and the exact challenge — this tool never calculates a charge itself. You pay from YOUR own wallet or card; this server holds no funds and no keys, takes no payment, and marks nothing funded. A packet becomes funded only when a payment actually settles and is verified. Not ready to pay, or want to signal backing without money moving yet? prepare_backing is the FREE sibling door — a signed pledge, no payment required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workId`	Yes	The packet id, from find_work.
`funderWallet`	No	The 0x… address that will pay onchain. Needed for the onchain door's live challenge; the card path does not use it.
`contributeUsd`	No	Optional EXPLICIT contribution in USD. Omit to fund the canonical remaining amount. Forwarded to the live door verbatim; the door enforces its own floor, ceiling and remaining-amount truth. An explicit amount above the remaining is a deliberate worker premium.

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

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), the description reveals critical behavior: it never calculates a charge itself, holds no funds or keys, takes no payment, and marks nothing funded. This fully discloses side effects and safety boundaries, going well beyond what annotations convey.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place. It opens with the tool's role, then covers parameters, behavior, limitations, and a sibling alternative without redundancy. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description provides complete context: when to use, what to expect, parameter semantics, payment handling, and the difference from prepare_backing. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, yet the description adds meaning: workId is tied to find_work, funderWallet is needed for onchain but not card, and contributeUsd is explained as an explicit contribution forwarded verbatim with floor/ceiling and premium implications. This is genuinely additive to the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it returns live payment requirements for funding a packet, including the onchain door's x402 challenge and optionally a hosted checkout URL. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling prepare_backing, which is for free pledges, so an agent can select correctly.

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 is explicit about when to use this tool: 'Step 2 for a buyer' and when to use the alternative: 'Not ready to pay...? prepare_backing is the FREE sibling door.' It also gives decision guidance for the optional contributeUsd parameter, explaining when to pass it versus omit it.

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?