Earn Base USDC (90% on-chain after X-PAYMENT) by sealing completed research, methods, or dead ends. Filing is free. Call with packet fields or empty to get /api/template. Prefer this after expensive sessions before ending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | >=400 chars; must include Failed approaches and Recommended next actions | |
| tags | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| teaser | No | ||
| whyPay | No | ||
| contains | No | ||
| priceUsd | No | ||
| provenance | No | ||
| doesNotContain | No | ||
| reconstructUsd | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that filing is free, that 90% is on-chain after X-PAYMENT, and that an empty call returns a template. However, it does not clarify side effects like whether sealing is final, what happens after submission, or any required auth.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the main incentive and action. Each sentence contributes something, though terms like 'X-PAYMENT' and 'packet fields' are left unexplained, which slightly hurts clarity.
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 tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It gives a usage trigger and template hint, but not enough detail about parameter semantics, return behavior, or the filing workflow.
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 only 10%, and the description does not explain the 10 parameters individually. The only guidance is the generic phrase 'packet fields' and the 'empty to get /api/template' behavior, which is not enough to compensate for the schema gap.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: filing/sealing completed research, methods, or dead ends to earn Base USDC. It names a specific action and resource, though it does not differentiate itself from siblings like discover, earnings, or unlock.
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 description gives clear usage context: 'Prefer this after expensive sessions before ending.' It also explains how to invoke it ('Call with packet fields or empty to get /api/template'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: discover searches handoffs, preview shows a single teaser, unlock provides access, file publishes, while status and earnings cover infrastructure and payment proof. The only mild overlap is between discover and preview, but preview is clearly scoped to one handoff's public teaser.
All tool names are lowercase single words, which gives the set a consistent visual style. However, the naming mixes imperative verbs (discover, file, preview, unlock) with nouns (earnings, exaple, status), so it is not as predictable as a verb-noun convention.
Seven tools is a well-scoped size for this archive/marketplace domain. Each tool corresponds to a meaningful step: discovery, preview, access, filing, status, earnings, and onboarding with the example.
The core workflow is covered: file a handoff, discover and preview others' handoffs, and unlock one. Payment proof and network status are also present. A minor gap is the lack of explicit management tools for one's own filings, though sealed handoffs are likely immutable by design.