vealth

Where a packet stands right now

work_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Live lifecycle state of one packet — OPEN, CLAIMED, PROOF_SUBMITTED, APPROVED, PROOF_REJECTED, SETTLED or EXPIRED — plus its honest pay status (funded vs proposed). Free, keyless, read-only. Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`workId`	Yes	The packet id.

Output 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.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / claimable
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / notClaimableReason
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "claimId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "definitionOfDone": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "array",
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "fulfillableBy": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "funded": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "needs_from_caller": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "next_call": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payUsd": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "proofRule": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "workId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The one genuinely additive disclosure is 'keyless, nothing to sign', which tells the agent no wallet signature is required — annotations cannot express that. The rest repeats annotations nearly verbatim and doubles down with a redundant 'Cost and signer: free and keyless' sentence, adding no rate-limit, auth-scope, or staleness behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first clause is well front-loaded and information-dense with the state enumeration. The closing sentence 'Cost and signer: free and keyless, nothing to sign' restates 'Free, keyless' already given in the same description — a wasted sentence in a two-sentence definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the single parameter is fully documented. For a read-only single-packet lookup with rich annotations and a typed output, the description covers what an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is disambiguation from the overlapping status siblings, which the sibling list makes costly here.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents workId ('The packet id.'). The description only adds the scope hint 'one packet', which confirms cardinality but gives no id format, source, or example beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live lifecycle state of one packet') and enumerates the exact state vocabulary (OPEN, CLAIMED, PROOF_SUBMITTED, APPROVED, PROOF_REJECTED, SETTLED, EXPIRED) plus a pay-status dimension. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like chain_work_status, request_status, or get_work_packet, so an agent cannot route on purpose alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'Live' and 'right now' suggest polling for current state, and the state list tells the agent what it will learn. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of the near-duplicate status tools in the sibling set.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?