Strategy execution. Generates the on-chain transaction data to paint pixels. Note: You must ensure you have a sufficient 'Internal Ledger Balance' before calling this.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pixels | Yes | ||
| painter | Yes | The Base wallet address that will be signing the transaction. |
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates transaction data, implying it does not broadcast the transaction, and warns about the 'Internal Ledger Balance.' However, it does not clarify whether the balance is checked or deducted, what the return value looks like, or edge cases like insufficient balance. This is partial transparency but lacks depth.
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 brief, with a clear action and a useful prerequisite note. The opening 'Strategy execution' fragment is vague and adds little value, but it does not significantly bloat the text. Overall, it is efficiently written.
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?
This tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain the output format of the generated transaction data or how it should be consumed. It also does not reference related tools for checking balance or fees. For a tool that generates on-chain data, missing this key information leaves the agent under-informed.
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?
The description adds no information about the 'pixels' array or 'painter' wallet address. Schema coverage is 50% (painter has a description, pixels does not), so the description should compensate, but it does not. The nested pixel structure (x, y, color) is left entirely to the schema, with no additional explanation of format or constraints.
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 explicitly states 'Generates the on-chain transaction data to paint pixels,' providing a specific action and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings: read_canvas is for reading the canvas, deposit_usdc/withdraw_usdc handle financial operations, and get_* are informational. The phrase 'transaction data' clarifies this tool creates data rather than directly acting on-chain.
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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies painting pixels but does not mention checking the canvas first, depositing funds, or referencing get_pixel_fee. The only guidance is the precondition about 'Internal Ledger Balance,' which is a requirement rather than usage direction. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
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.