vealth

Submit the signed offer (step 2 of 2)

submit_bid

Complete the bid: pass workId, the BODY_JSON from prepare_bid UNCHANGED, and the signature your wallet produced over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN. Relays to the same public bid gate any HTTP client uses; this server holds no keys and no funds. Free with a valid signature. Returns your recorded offer; the creator accepts or declines it later — work_status and my_work show what happened.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workId`	Yes	The packet id.
`bodyJson`	Yes	The exact BODY_JSON string from prepare_bid, 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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as a mutating, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful context: it relays to the public bid gate, the server holds no keys/funds, it is free with a valid signature, and the outcome is later visible through work_status/my_work. This goes well beyond what the annotations state.

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?

Four sentences are compact and each earns its place: how to complete the call, operational context, cost, and how to observe the result. The key instructions are front-loaded before the contextual details.

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?

With a present output schema and detailed parameter descriptions, the description provides everything else an agent needs: the prerequisite prepare_bid step, binding requirements for bodyJson/signature, the non-custodial nature, and pointers to work_status/my_work for the eventual outcome.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the description need not compensate. It reinforces the critical 'BODY_JSON unchanged' and 'personal_sign over MESSAGE_TO_SIGN' constraints but adds little semantic value beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Complete the bid') and resource, and clearly positions it as the signed-offer submission step after prepare_bid. The title 'Submit the signed offer (step 2 of 2)' plus mention of returning the recorded offer distinguish it from the many sibling submit_* tools.

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 explicitly names prepare_bid as the source of bodyJson and MESSAGE_TO_SIGN, giving the required sequence without relying on inference. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the step-2 framing and references to work_status/my_work provide clear 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?