The front door of OracleNet. Describe what you need in natural language — OracleNet understands, finds the right oracle, executes, and delivers the result. One call. Full loop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| need | Yes | What you need in natural language (NOT "question" — use "need") | |
| execute | No | Auto-execute (default: true). Set false to preview. | |
| arguments | No | Pre-set tool arguments (optional, auto-inferred from query) | |
| caller_did | No | Your DID (optional) |
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 provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the flow (understands, finds oracle, executes) but omits critical details such as whether execution may have side effects, what happens if the request cannot be understood, whether results are immediate, or any permission/error considerations. The marketing-style 'One call. Full loop.' adds no behavioral clarity.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose ('front door of OracleNet', 'Describe what you need'). The final phrases 'One call. Full loop.' are somewhat redundant and could be omitted without losing meaning, but overall it's appropriately sized.
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 complex orchestrator with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, failure modes, or how the tool interacts with other oracles, leaving the agent without enough context to set expectations.
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%, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the concept of natural-language 'need', which is also in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 identifies the tool as the 'front door of OracleNet' that accepts natural language, routes to an appropriate oracle, executes, and returns results. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quantum_execute or quantum_route, but the exact scope of 'need' and 'oracle' remains high-level.
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 implies this is the main entry point for any OracleNet request ('One call. Full loop.'), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios. Sibling tools are not mentioned as 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.
Several tools have unclear boundaries: quantum_ask and quantum_intent both serve as natural language 'front doors' with similar descriptions, and quantum_route and quantum_refer both find the best oracle for a task. This creates significant overlap that could cause agents to select the wrong tool.
Most tools follow a consistent quantum_<verb_or_noun> snake_case pattern (e.g., quantum_join, quantum_execute, quantum_settle). The single exception is neural_status, which breaks the prefix convention, but overall the naming is predictable and readable.
With 20 tools, the server sits in the heavy range (16-25). While the broad scope of OracleNet (intelligence, natural language, deals, reputation, subscriptions, scanning) somewhat justifies the count, it feels overpacked and could be streamlined by merging overlapping tools.
The tool surface covers core workflows: joining, querying status/nodes/reputation, routing, executing, dealing, settling, rating, and subscribing. However, lifecycle gaps exist—no unsubscribe, leave/delete node, deal cancellation, or dispute resolution—which can leave agents with dead ends.