Gloam

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds material context beyond them: keys are kept on the local machine, and the resulting server can sign and pay (shield, private pay, x402, MPP, spending limits). The key-custody statement is a genuine security property an agent should know before recommending it. It still doesn't say what the response looks like (commands as text vs. executed install).

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

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Commands to install the local Gloam MCP server'). The parenthetical capability list (shield, private pay, x402, MPP, spending limits) reads as marketing rather than selection-relevant detail, but it is not enough to break the structure.

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

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

For a single-optional-parameter, read-only helper with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it produces, which clients it supports, and the security posture. The only real gap is clarifying that it returns commands rather than executing the install.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single enum parameter is fully described, so the baseline is 3. The description's client list loosely mirrors the enum but is incomplete (no 'gemini', no 'all'), so it neither adds reliable meaning nor compensates for anything missing.

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

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

The description states a concrete output — install commands for the local Gloam MCP server — and enumerates the target clients, which distinguishes it from siblings like gloam_info or gloam_create_payment_request. It is slightly ambiguous whether the tool performs an install or merely returns commands, and the name 'connect_full_agent' doesn't perfectly match 'commands to install'.

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

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. The reader must infer from 'Commands to install' that this is the onboarding/setup entry point rather than a runtime payment tool.

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

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing a real behavioral trait: the payload rides after the '#' so the payer's browser never transmits it to a server. It also states the security prerequisite — a public gloamr1… address, never a key — and describes the payer-side confirmation flow.

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

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the payer flow, then the privacy and credential requirements. No filler or repetition of the title.

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

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

For a link-building tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics and constraints. The only real gap is that it never states plainly that the tool returns the link URL as a string, which the agent must assume.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented by the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description reinforces that address, amount, asset and note populate the link, but adds nothing beyond the schema and doesn't mention 'name' or 'network' at all.

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

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

States a specific verb and artifact: 'Make a link that asks someone to pay your Gloam address'. The output (a payment-request link) and the audience (a payer) are both named, and no sibling tool in the list produces links, so it is unambiguous.

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

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

Usage is implied by the framing (you want someone to pay you), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. It never mentions how this differs from, say, gloam_plan_deposit or gloam_connect_full_agent, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: the server never holds funds and never accepts a private key, recovery phrase, or note secret — an important trust boundary an agent should know before calling anything here. It does not describe what the response contains, keeping it below a 5.

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

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

Two tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the scope statement and the call-to-action, followed by the security caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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

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

For a zero-parameter, read-only info tool with no output schema, the description covers the content categories an agent would get back and the trust model. It could say a bit more about the shape of the returned information, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a zero-input call and there is nothing further to document.

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

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

The description names a specific content scope — what Gloam is, what the hosted server can do, and where to sign or spend — which is more than a restatement of the title. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like gloam_mpp_how_to or gloam_networks, but the orientation framing plus 'Call this first' implicitly separates it as the entry point.

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

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

'Call this first' is an explicit, actionable trigger that tells the agent exactly when to invoke it. There is no when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops short of full routing instruction, but the sequencing advice is clear.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real domain behavior — that a charge settles as a private vault transfer invisible to the chain — plus the fact that code samples are included. It stops short of saying what form the response takes (prose guide, snippets, examples) or how role/network change the content, which is the key behavioral question for a reference tool.

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

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

Two compact sentences, the topic and protocol are front-loaded, and the privacy property follows as useful supporting detail. No filler, though the parenthetical protocol expansion could be tightened.

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

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

With fully documented enums, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the domain framing an agent needs to call this correctly. The remaining gap is what a caller receives (guide text vs. runnable code) and how role/network scope the answer, which matters for a documentation-retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both enum parameters (role, network) are thoroughly documented in the schema, including network names, assets, mainnet vs testnet. The description adds nothing about how role or network affect the returned guidance, so it sits at the baseline when the schema does the work.

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

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

The description names the concrete subject (paying or charging privately over MPP/HTTP 402 using @gloamtrade/mppx-gloam) and signals it returns a how-to 'with code'. It is clearly the documentation/reference tool among siblings like gloam_create_payment_request and gloam_connect_full_agent. What is slightly weak is that it reads more like a topic title than a verb stating it returns guidance — an agent has to infer 'this fetches instructions'.

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

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

Usage is only implied: the tool is framed as the 'how to' for MPP private payments, so an agent can infer it should be consulted before implementing pay/charge flows. There is no explicit 'use this when…' phrasing, no exclusion or alternative (e.g. versus gloam_connect_full_agent or gloam_create_payment_request), and no prerequisite statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a static configuration catalogue (addresses, routers, RPCs, faucets), which tells the agent it is a lookup rather than a live query. It does not say whether values are cached, versioned, or how large the payload is.

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

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

It is a single sentence with no filler, and the primary noun ('The networks Gloam runs on, mainnets first') is front-loaded. However, the long comma-chained parenthetical of per-chain assets is hard to scan and largely repeats the enum descriptions, so it is not maximally efficient.

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

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so reasonably by listing the fields returned (vault addresses, routers, assets, explorers, RPCs, faucets). For a zero-required-parameter read-only reference tool that is close to sufficient; only the relationship to gloam_info is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the enum values are individually annotated with their networks and assets, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's own asset lists (USDC.e, pathUSD, USDT0, OUSD, USDG, GLOAM on mainnet) partially duplicate that and add no syntax or default behaviour beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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

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

The description names a specific resource (Gloam networks) and enumerates the concrete payload: vault/pool addresses, per-mainnet swap routers, depositable assets, explorers, RPCs and faucets. That is far more than a restatement of the title. It falls short of a 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling gloam_info, leaving the agent unsure which reference tool to open.

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

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

There is no explicit instruction on when to call this versus gloam_info, gloam_vault_stats or gloam_plan_deposit. Usage is only inferable from the noun phrase 'the networks Gloam runs on'. The only routing hint ('Leave out for every network') lives in the schema, not the description.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds the crucial clarification that despite 'deposit' nothing is signed or broadcast — the user signs in their own wallet in the app. It also discloses the return content (steps, privacy breakdown, app link), resolving the main behavioral doubt an agent would have.

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

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

Two clauses, zero filler, with the action and object front-loaded and the non-execution caveat immediately after. Every phrase carries information.

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

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

For a 3-param, no-output-schema planning tool with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the two things structured fields can't: what the plan returns and that no transaction occurs. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema fully documents asset (including per-network default), amount format, and the network enum with token lists. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does all the work.

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

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

States a specific verb (plan) and resource (deposit into a private Gloam balance / shield), and even enumerates what the response contains: steps, the public/private split, and an app link. No sibling tool covers deposit planning, so an agent can route here without ambiguity.

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

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

Usage is implied — 'plan a deposit' plus the note that signing happens in the user's own wallet establishes this as the pre-execution step. But no alternative is named and no explicit when-not condition or prerequisite (e.g., connect first, check network support via gloam_networks) is given.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world access, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: results are cached for about a minute (staleness expectation) and contain no wallet-level data (privacy/aggregation guarantee). It stops short of describing freshness on chain reorgs or the fetch cost, but the caching note is the most operationally relevant trait.

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

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

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the returned metrics front-loaded and the scope and caching caveats trailing. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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

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

With no output schema, the description does the work of naming the returned metrics and asserting the absence of wallet-level detail, plus a cache-freshness note. The only gap is the exact shape of the response (per-vault array vs. mapping) and whether totals are denominated in raw or USD terms, which an agent would still have to discover.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'network' parameter has a thorough enum description including which assets each network carries and the 'leave out for every network' default. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 applies.

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

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

States a specific resource (public vault totals read from chain) and enumerates exactly what is returned: holdings plus counts of deposits, private transfers, cash outs and payment messages. The scope exclusion 'Totals only, no wallets' cleanly separates it from any wallet-level or transaction-level sibling, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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

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

Usage is only implied: an agent infers 'call this when you want aggregate vault metrics.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no statement of when not to use it, and no reference to any sibling alternative (e.g. gloam_info or gloam_networks for non-statistical context).

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar for added behavioral value is low, and the description clears it: it enumerates what is actually checked (ZK proof, vault origin, recipient, expiry, live vault state), discloses the network.testnet return flag and its meaning, and openly states the limits of what a payment or payroll proof reveals. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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

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

Front-loaded with the accepted proof prefixes, then checks, then caveats. It is dense (four long sentences) but every sentence carries distinct information – proof types, verification scope, network flag, privacy limits, disc1 exclusion – none is filler. Slightly heavier than necessary for a single-parameter tool.

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

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

For a one-parameter, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool, the description is nearly complete: it covers inputs, what verification entails, and one important return field. It does not outline the rest of the result shape (e.g., validity boolean, failure modes), which would be needed since no output schema exists, so it falls just short of full completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds value the schema does not: it explains that gloamdisc1 is syntactically valid yet never verified, which changes how an agent should interpret a successful result for that prefix. The privacy caveats about pay/roll proofs further contextualize what the parameter's content implies.

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

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

The description states a specific verb (check/verify) and resource (a Gloam proof) and enumerates the exact proof types handled (gloamfunds1, gloampay1, gloamroll1, gloambal1). It also anchors the operation to a known equivalent ('same checks as gloam.trade/verify'), so an agent knows precisely what it does and can distinguish it from any other tool in the set.

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

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

The opening clause establishes the use case ('a proof someone shared with you'), and the gloamdisc1 exclusion gives an explicit when-not rule with a rationale (anyone can copy one from a public deposit). It does not reference any sibling tool, but none of the listed siblings perform verification, so no routing ambiguity is left unresolved.

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