vealth

Prepare a GMX market-order transaction (non-custodial)

prepare_gmx_order

Read-onlyIdempotent

Build an unsigned on-chain transaction to open a new perpetual position on GMX v2 (Arbitrum). Returns transaction fields ready for the caller to sign with their own wallet. This is NOT a message to sign — it is a full Ethereum transaction. Requires the caller to have approved the GMX Router for USDC collateral spending (a separate one-time approve() call).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`side`	Yes	Position direction.
`asset`	Yes	Asset symbol (e.g. 'WIF', 'ETH', 'BTC', 'SOL').
`wallet`	Yes	0x… Arbitrum wallet address (the order receiver — your wallet).
`leverage`	Yes	Leverage multiplier (1x to 10x).
`workPacketId`	No	Optional. A vealth.net EWP work packet id (from find_work) to pledge this trade's UI fee toward. Moves no money now — records intent only. Funding still requires a separate, later, confirmed payment, exactly like any other funder.
`collateralUsd`	Yes	Collateral amount in USD (must be > 0 and ≤ $5).

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?

This tool's description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses that the output is an unsigned Ethereum transaction, not a message, and it flags the approval requirement. These are critical behavioral traits not captured by readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or idempotentHint, making the description the primary source for these details.

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: the first sentence conveys the core function, the second clarifies the output type, and the third adds the critical prerequisite. There is no filler or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the key aspects: what it does, the output nature, the prerequisite, and the network (Arbitrum). Nothing an agent needs to call it 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 schema already explains every parameter (side, asset, wallet, leverage, collateralUsd, workPacketId). The description adds marginal context by noting the approval requirement relevant to collateralUsd, but it does not clarify individual parameter formats or constraints beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Build an unsigned on-chain transaction to open a new perpetual position on GMX v2 (Arbitrum).' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_gmx_order by the explicit 'prepare' vs. 'submit' pairing, and it enumerates the exact output ('transaction fields ready for the caller to sign').

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 provides a clear context: it prepares a transaction for the caller to sign, and it explicitly notes the required approval prerequisite. It does not explicitly name the alternative (submit_gmx_order), but the 'prepare' nomenclature and the statement 'ready for the caller to sign' imply when to use this versus a submitting tool.

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?