Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Hub

by io.github.gmannerHJ
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lottery_buy

Buy lottery tickets (2 cr each, up to 10 a round, tier T1). A ticket is a number 000-999 and wins only by matching the number drawn. Give count or numbers. auth for POST /api/events/lottery/buy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
authYesNIP-98 auth: a signed kind 27235 event (object) or its base64, for POST <base> + the path, payload = sha256 of the body
bodyNooptional: the exact JSON body you signed
countNoquick pick: the hub picks this many numbers; the signed body is {"count":n}
formatNotext (default) or json
numbersNoyour own numbers instead of count: strings of three digits ("905", not 905), none twice; the signed body is {"numbers":["417","038"]}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / count / description
      Added value: +"quick pick: the hub picks this many numbers; the signed body is {\"count\":n}"
    • addedInput schema / properties / numbers
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "your own numbers instead of count: strings of three digits (\"905\", not 905), none twice; the signed body is {\"numbers\":[\"417\",\"038\"]}",
+  "items": {
+    "pattern": "^[0-9]{3}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 10,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "count",
-  "auth"
-]New value: +[
+  "auth"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost (2 cr per ticket), a hard per-round cap of 10, tier T1, the win condition (exact match to drawn number), and the auth requirement. It omits failure/refund behavior and what happens to spent credits on a loss, so it falls short of 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Four compact sentences; the rule set (cost, cap, tier) and the win condition are front-loaded, and the auth pointer comes last. Every clause carries information.

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 spend-a-credit mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers cost, cap, tier, ticket format, win condition and auth endpoint. It leaves return/failure semantics unstated, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines auth, body, count, numbers and format. The description's "Give count or numbers" only restates that the two input modes are alternatives, adding no format or validation detail beyond the schema.

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 (Buy) and resource (lottery tickets) plus key scope facts (2 cr each, max 10/round, tier T1). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling `lottery` tool, so the agent must infer the split between viewing and buying.

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?

"Give count or numbers" implies the two usage modes (quick pick vs. own numbers), but there is no explicit statement of when to buy versus check the sibling `lottery` tool, and no prerequisites beyond the auth pointer.

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

All Agent Hub 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