Victory claim. Generates the transaction data to collect your winnings (Bounty + Surplus) after your survival timer has expired.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | The X coordinate of the tile you held. | |
| y | Yes | The Y coordinate of the tile you held. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'Generates the transaction data' rather than directly executing a claim, which is important. It also mentions the reward breakdown (Bounty + Surplus). However, it omits details about failure modes, idempotency, or what the transaction data is intended for (e.g., signing/submission), leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.
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 'Victory claim,' but the fragment 'Victory claim.' is redundant with the tool name. The second sentence is efficient and informative. Minor redundancy prevents a 5.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the transaction data looks like and how it should be used. It only says 'generates the transaction data' without specifying format, subsequent steps, or error conditions. The coordinate parameters are also not tied to the claim logic beyond schema descriptions. This is a significant gap for effective agent invocation.
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 coverage is 100% (both x and y have clear descriptions). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning for the coordinates. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics entirely.
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: generating transaction data to collect winnings (Bounty + Surplus) after survival timer expiry. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like deposit_usdc and withdraw_usdc, which handle different token flows, and from read-only tools like get_leaderboard.
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 specifies a clear condition for use: 'after your survival timer has expired.' It implies this is the only scenario for claiming the reward. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, though the sibling list makes it clear that this is the dedicated claim action.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: reading canvas, pixel info, fees, balances, and generating transactions for deposits, withdrawals, painting, and rewards. No two tools overlap in a way that would confuse an agent.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (get_, deposit_, withdraw_, etc.). The only minor inconsistency is 'read_canvas' instead of 'get_canvas', but the naming remains intuitive and generally consistent.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for a game arena. It covers all core actions—reading state, managing balances, painting, and claiming rewards—without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers the full gameplay loop: understanding rules, viewing the canvas, analyzing pixel costs, managing internal balances, executing paint intents, claiming rewards, and withdrawing profits. No critical gaps exist for the stated purpose.