agentcard

get_rewards

Read-onlyIdempotent

Show the user's tokenback: balance, lifetime earned, and recent activity. Tokenback pays tokens (1 token = 1¢ of credit value) on settled card spend. AI cards (create_card scope_preset: 'ai_labs') earn a boosted rate on AI-lab purchases, and companies can route a share of their earnings to their users as tokenback. Redeem with redeem_rewards.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_rewards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Human-readable summary.
`balanceTokens`	No	Current token balance (1 token = 1 cent).
`redeemedTokens`	No	Tokens redeemed all-time.
`minRedeemTokens`	No	Minimum tokens per redemption.
`lifetimeEarnedTokens`	No	Tokens earned all-time.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds valuable context: what data is shown (balance, lifetime, recent activity) and explains tokenback mechanics (rate, AI card boost). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Extremely concise (3 sentences, ~55 words). Every sentence serves a purpose: describes output, explains tokenback value, and provides cross-reference to redeem_rewards. No redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given zero parameters, existing output schema, and annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it fits with sibling tools. Complete for a simple read-only tool.

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?

No parameters; baseline 4 is appropriate. Schema is empty, so description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

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 'Show the user's tokenback' with specific components (balance, lifetime earned, recent activity). Distinguishes from sibling tools like redeem_rewards, so agents know this is the read-only view.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Redeem with redeem_rewards' for redemption. Also implies use for viewing reward details, not for other actions.

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

All agentcard tools Inspect

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

Need Help?