vealth

Submit the signed pledge (step 2 of 2)

submit_backing

Complete the pledge: pass workId, the BODY_JSON from prepare_backing UNCHANGED, and the signature your wallet produced over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. This server relays the signed request to the same public pledge gate any HTTP client uses — it holds no keys and no funds, and without your signature it can do nothing. Free, always: no fee is ever charged for a validly signed pledge. Returns whether your wallet's balance verified against the pledged amount, and the packet's current backer ledger.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workId`	Yes	The packet id.
`bodyJson`	Yes	The exact BODY_JSON string from prepare_backing, unchanged.
`signature`	Yes	The 0x… personal_sign output over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the readOnly=false/openWorld/idempotent annotations by explaining the server relays the signed request, holds no keys or funds, cannot act without a signature, never charges a fee, and reports balance verification. This is substantial behavioral transparency for a submission tool.

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 front-loaded with the actionable instruction and each subsequent sentence carries relevant safety, fee, and return context. It is slightly wordier than strictly necessary, but nothing is filler.

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?

Every input is given a provenance, the action's trust model is explained, fee behavior is disclosed, and the return outcome is summarized. The output schema and annotations fill in the rest, so no significant decision-relevant information is missing.

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?

Because the schema already covers all three parameters, the description's extra value is tying them into the prepare_backing workflow and emphasizing that bodyJson must be passed unchanged and signature is produced by the wallet over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. That is useful but not a large leap beyond the schema 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 names a specific verb ('Complete the pledge'), the resource, and the exact inputs, and the title marks it as step 2 of 2. This unambiguously distinguishes submit_backing from prepare_backing and from the other submit_* siblings.

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 clearly establishes the prerequisite workflow by requiring the unchanged BODY_JSON from prepare_backing and the signature over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. It doesn't explicitly say when to avoid this tool or compare it to other pledge-related tools, but the step 2-of-2 framing provides enough context.

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?