Skip to main content
Glama

Pending signs

pending_signs
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scheduled buys of wallet that are ready to sign now, each with its sign_url and when its window closes. Read only. Show the user every link.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "wallet": "<wallet>"
    },
    "name": "pending_signs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletYesWallet address on Robinhood Chain, 0x…

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the per-item fields (sign_url and window close time) and an operational rule that every link must be surfaced to the user, which matters for a signing flow with expiring windows.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the scoping constraint comes first. 'Read only' mildly restates readOnlyHint=true, but the cost is a few words and it reinforces the constraint for a signing-adjacent tool.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return shape (sign_url, closing window) and the required user-facing action. Minor gaps remain — behavior when nothing is pending, or whether the list is paginated — but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single wallet parameter is already documented as a 0x… address on Robinhood Chain. The description only says results are 'of wallet' without adding scoping, format, or multi-wallet behavior beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (scheduled buys of a given wallet that are ready to sign now) plus the returned fields. It implicitly separates this from list_schedules by the 'ready to sign now' qualifier, but never names the sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'ready to sign now' implies a timing condition for use, and 'Show the user every link' gives a post-fetch instruction. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. list_schedules for items not yet ready), so usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources