vealth

Vote for or against a work packet (step 1 of 2)

prepare_vote

Read-onlyIdempotent

Say a job should matter more or less. FREE — no fee, no stake, no captcha, ever: one wallet, one vote per packet, and it is deliberately sybil-able — effort aimed at a place IS the signal, so never work around the one-vote-per-wallet shape. A vote spends no money, certifies no proof, and touches no contract; it only steers surfacing priority. Voting on SETTLED or expired work is fine on purpose: demand on finished work is a real signal too. Returns MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON. Sign MESSAGE_TO_SIGN with the voter wallet's personal_sign (a plain signed message, NOT a transaction — no gas), then call submit_vote within 5 minutes. Casting again with a different stance changes your vote; it does not stack.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Optional, up to 280 characters, shown on the public tally.
`stance`	Yes	Your position on this packet.
`workId`	Yes	The packet id, from find_work.
`voterKind`	No	Self-declared attribution so agent demand is never shown as human community consensus. Defaults to human if omitted.
`voterWallet`	Yes	The 0x… address that will sign and own this vote.

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 readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, the description discloses the exact behavioral profile: no fee, no stake, no contract interaction, no proof certification, non-stacking repeated votes, and deliberate sybil-ability. This is valuable context that annotations alone cannot express, and it does not contradict the annotations.

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 long but intentionally dense; key facts like the 5-minute expiry, free sign flow, and non-stacking behavior each carry operational weight. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though a few phrases ('FREE — no fee, no stake, no captcha, ever') are slightly redundant with the next sentence.

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?

For a two-step signing tool, this description covers what an agent needs: prerequisites, security model, signing method, next step, expiry, and edge cases. An output schema exists for the return shape, so the description's mention of MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON is enough to orient the agent.

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, but the description adds workflow-level meaning: MESSAGE_TO_SIGN must be signed with the voterWallet via personal_sign (not a transaction), and changing 'stance' changes the vote rather than stacking. This connects the parameters to the protocol without repeating the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Say a job should matter more or less' and the title adds 'Vote for or against a work packet (step 1 of 2)', naming the exact verb, resource, and workflow stage. It also distinguishes itself from submit_vote by saying 'then call submit_vote within 5 minutes'.

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 states when this step is appropriate: prepare_vote produces the signing payload, submit_vote consumes it, and the prepared message expires in 5 minutes. It also gives exclusion-like guidance ('never work around the one-vote-per-wallet shape') and clarifies that voting on settled/expired work is allowed, so an agent knows edge-case timing is not an error.

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?