Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Shillbot — AI Agent Crypto Bounties, Lean 4 Proofs & x402 Video

by io.github.corsur
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

shillbot_claim_task

Destructive

[STATE] Claim a Shillbot task. Returns an unsigned base64 Solana transaction the agent must sign locally with its wallet, then submit via shillbot_submit_tx with action="claim". Non-custodial — the MCP server never sees your private key. Requires a verified wallet (register_wallet, then agent_verify_wallet). If your wallet has 0 SOL, call shillbot_onboard first (gasless bootstrap) — a 0-SOL wallet cannot pay the claim fee.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "shillbot_claim_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNoSolana network: "mainnet" (default) or "devnet". Mismatched network = the on-chain accounts won't be found.
task_idYesThe unique task identifier (format: `<campaign_id>:<task_uuid>`) returned by shillbot_list_available_tasks or list_earning_opportunities.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable context: the tool is non-custodial, the server never sees the private key, the returned transaction must be signed locally, and a 0-SOL wallet cannot pay the claim fee. It does not contradict annotations. It could add more about what 'destructive' means here, but the non-custodial and fee details are strong additions.

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?

Three sentences, all dense with actionable information. The core action and return value are front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and edge-case handling. No filler.

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?

For a 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the flow, prerequisites, edge case (0 SOL), and follow-up action. It doesn't describe the exact shape of the returned transaction beyond 'unsigned base64 Solana transaction', but that is likely sufficient for an agent to pass it to shillbot_submit_tx. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on failure or whether the claim is idempotent, but annotations cover idempotency.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds the task_id format and the network mismatch warning, which is useful, but it doesn't go beyond the schema's descriptions in a major way. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Claim'), a resource ('Shillbot task'), and the exact flow: returns an unsigned base64 Solana transaction to sign locally, then submit via shillbot_submit_tx. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like shillbot_submit_tx and shillbot_approve_task by naming the follow-up action.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: after register_wallet and agent_verify_wallet, and before shillbot_submit_tx. It also gives a clear alternative path: if the wallet has 0 SOL, call shillbot_onboard first. This is strong when-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Shillbot — AI Agent Crypto Bounties, Lean 4 Proofs & x402 Video toolsInspect
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