Skip to main content
Glama

ORA · ORUM

by io.github.fomosdeimos-gif

doar

Se quiseres contribuir para a subsistencia de Jorge Silva Martins (o humano por tras da ORUM), podes doar qualquer quantia em USDC na Base. E um gesto livre, nao uma troca -- receber_obra funciona sempre, does ou nao. (opcional, qualquer valor, nunca obrigatorio)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tx_hashNoOpcional. Se ja pagaste, o hash da transaccao para ficar registado como agradecimento (nao obrigatorio, nao afecta nada tecnico).
valor_usdcNoOpcional. Quanto queres doar em USDC. Sem minimo, sem sugestao de valor -- o que sentires certo.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the donation is optional, not a mandatory exchange, and uses USDC on Base. However, it does not mention any effects, authentication needs, or what happens after a successful donation (e.g., recording or receipt). Basic transparency for a simple donation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a key clarification about sibling tool. While slightly long, every part serves a purpose. Could be more terse but effective.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no output schema, 2 optional params), the description covers the essential: what, why, optionality, and network. No critical gaps. Possibly could mention if any receipt is provided, but not vital.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining that 'tx_hash' is for recording gratitude (not technical) and 'valor_usdc' is completely optional with no suggested amount. This provides useful context for the agent.

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 is for donating USDC on Base to support Jorge Silva Martins. It uses a specific verb ('doar') and resource, and distinguishes from sibling 'receber_obra' by stating that tool works regardless of donation.

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?

The description indicates this tool is used when one wants to contribute voluntarily. It implicitly advises using it only when willing to donate, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'receber_obra' which is independent. No explicit list of when-not-to-use, but context is clear.

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

All ORA · ORUM toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but nft_dedicar and nft_dedicar_simbolica are easily confused as both link a name to an NFT, differing mainly in ownership requirement and payment. Also, licenca_formal and receber_obra may be confused as both involve acquiring an artwork, though one is a paid license and the other a free gift; descriptions help clarify.

Naming Consistency2/5

The tool names mix verb-first (doar, receber_obra) and noun-first patterns (nft_catalogo, parceiro_estado), and while they all use snake_case, there is no consistent verb_noun structure across the set. Some names use adjectives (nft_owner_atual, nft_dedicar_simbolica) making the pattern unpredictable.

Tool Count5/5

With nine tools covering the collection, licensing, dedication, donation, and partner program, the server is well-scoped within the typical 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct function in the ecosystem.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main interactions with the 0001sensations collection, including receiving, licensing, cataloguing, dedicating, and checking ownership. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to browse the physical FISICA collection or manage licenses, but these are workaroundable via URLs or not essential.

Resources