Resonance Reward Agent

rsnc_agent_create_event

Create a new reward event for a brand. Events define what user actions earn cashback. The agent validates the configuration against the brand's data maturity before creating.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brandId`	Yes	The brand identifier (wallet address).
`eventType`	Yes	The type of user action that triggers this reward event.
`maxClaims`	No	Maximum total claims allowed. 0 = unlimited. Defaults to 0.
`customName`	No	Required when eventType is "custom". Human-readable name for the custom event.
`rewardAmount`	Yes	RSNC tokens awarded per claim. Must be greater than 0.
`cooldownHours`	No	Hours between claims per user. Defaults to 24.
`detectionMethod`	No	How the event is detected. Defaults to "webhook".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedMar 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one notable behavior: 'The agent validates the configuration against the brand's data maturity before creating.' However, it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or failure behavior, which is a gap for a mutating tool.

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?

The description is two sentences and 30 words, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states what the tool does, the second provides domain context and a behavioral detail. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and a validation behavior, but lacks explicit guidance on return values, prerequisites, or failure conditions. The 100% schema coverage compensates for parameter details, but the overall contextual picture is incomplete for an agent seeking to invoke the tool safely.

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%, and each parameter is fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific context beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Create a new reward event') and identifies the domain ('for a brand'), and explains what events represent ('user actions earn cashback'). This is specific, distinct from sibling tools like rsnc_agent_update_event and rsnc_agent_process_event, and conveys the tool's purpose in a single, direct sentence.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool—when creating a new reward event—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The distinction from update_event is implied by the name, but the description could be stronger by explicitly saying 'use this to create, update_event to modify' or noting when not to use it.

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

All Resonance Reward Agent tools Inspect

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

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., rsnc_agent_best_deals, rsnc_agent_route_purchase, and rsnc_agent_compare_cashback all help find the best purchase/reward option. Similarly, rsnc_agent_network_info, rsnc_agent_network_stats, and rsnc_agent_network_analytics provide similar network overview data with unclear boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the consistent 'rsnc_agent_' prefix, but the remainder mixes verb-first patterns (browse_perks, claim_reward, create_event) with noun-first patterns (brand_analytics, network_flows, perk_intelligence). This inconsistency makes the tool surface less predictable than a uniform verb_noun scheme.

Tool Count2/5

With 45 tools, the server feels over-scoped for a rewards network. While the domain is broad, many tools are highly granular analytics variations, and the count exceeds the 25+ threshold, adding cognitive load and diminishing coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core lifecycle: brand discovery, onboarding, event/perk creation and updates, reward processing, user balance/stats, and redemption. Minor gaps exist, such as no delete operations for events/perks and no direct user listing, but agents can work around these.

Resources

Need Help?