spec
The full ODW (Onchain Dealing Wire) protocol specification, markdown.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
wire
by net.csclear
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description fails to mention any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, authentication needs, rate limits). The description bears full burden but offers no transparency.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded and immediately clear.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately specifies what the tool returns. Could mention that the spec is a string or document, but overall sufficient.
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?
Input schema has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter information is needed, and the description does not add anything beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states it provides the full ODW protocol specification in markdown format. Distinct from sibling tools like 'about' which likely offer overviews or summaries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'about' or 'directory'. The description does not differentiate usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the dealing wire (e.g., conv_status vs. deal_status, directory vs. instruments), with no obvious overlap. Descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names are mostly snake_case and descriptive, but vary between noun phrases (e.g., 'about', 'montage') and verb phrases (e.g., 'post_axe', 'send_call'). The pattern is not fully uniform but remains clear and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 18 tools, the server covers documentation, status queries, listing, and actions for a complex protocol. The count is well-scoped, avoiding both excess and insufficiency.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage: reading schemas, posting axes, sending envelopes, polling rings, and inspecting deals and conversations. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of agent-based dealing on the wire.