Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

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

by io.github.corsur
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

shillbot_confirm_tx

Destructive

[STATE] Confirm a Shillbot transaction you constructed and broadcast through your own Solana RPC. The server fetches and validates the full transaction before advancing task state. Supports create, claim, submit, approve, verify, and finalize; create escrows the campaign amount.

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>",
      "action": "<action>",
      "tx_signature": "<tx_signature>"
    },
    "name": "shillbot_confirm_tx"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesOne of create, claim, submit, approve, verify, or finalize.
networkNoSolana network: "mainnet" (default) or "devnet". Mismatched network = the on-chain accounts won't be found.
task_idYesThe task identifier the already-broadcast transaction applies to.
task_pdaNoRequired for create; ignored for other actions.
tx_signatureYesBase58 Solana signature returned by the caller's own RPC broadcaster.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: it states that the server fetches and validates the full transaction, and it notes that 'create escrows the campaign amount.' This complements the destructiveHint=true annotation by explaining what happens during validation. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful side-effect context.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose and precondition, and the second sentence lists supported actions and a special note about create. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy or 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 tool with 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: confirming a broadcast transaction and advancing task state. It also highlights the create-specific escrow behavior. Missing details like network matching or task_pda requirements are already covered in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds a bit of semantics by noting that 'create escrows the campaign amount,' which is relevant to the action parameter. However, it does not elaborate on parameters like task_pda, network, or tx_signature beyond what the schema already provides, so it only marginally enhances parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to confirm a Shillbot transaction that the caller constructed and broadcast via their own Solana RPC. It explicitly mentions the server fetches and validates the transaction before advancing task state, and it lists the supported actions (create, claim, submit, approve, verify, finalize). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shillbot_submit_tx, which likely handles submission rather than confirmation.

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?

The description gives a clear precondition: the transaction must have been constructed and broadcast by the caller through their own RPC. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or how it relates to alternative sibling tools such as shillbot_submit_tx or shillbot_create_campaign. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or direct comparisons.

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