Profit realization. Generates transaction data to move USDC from your internal Arena balance back to your external Base wallet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount | Yes | USDC amount as a string (e.g. '5.00') |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context by saying 'generates transaction data' rather than directly transferring, which clarifies the tool's non-executive nature. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the balance changes immediately.
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 concise and front-loaded, with the essential detail in the second sentence. The opening phrase 'Profit realization' is a bit cryptic and adds limited value, but it does not significantly distract. Overall, it is efficient with minimal waste.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and direction. It mentions 'generates transaction data' as the expected return, but does not explain the structure of that data or how the amount influences it. Some gaps remain for full context.
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 input schema already fully describes the only parameter (amount) with a concrete example, so the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. The description doesn't mention the amount at all, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 function: 'Generates transaction data to move USDC from your internal Arena balance back to your external Base wallet.' This specifies a concrete action and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like deposit_usdc (which would be the reverse direction).
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 provides clear context with 'Profit realization,' indicating when to use the tool. It implies the purpose without explicitly naming alternatives or exclusions, but the direction ('from internal Arena balance to external Base wallet') makes the use case obvious.
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.