Skip to main content
Glama

Tereno on Base

by xyz.tereno
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

What would this call cost right now?

tereno_price

Free. Indicative price and reuse tier for one specific input, without binding a quote or revealing a wallet. Returns hit when another agent already paid to compute this and it is still fresh, partial when only the durable half survives, miss when nothing is there to reuse. The gap between those tiers is what reuse is worth.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressNoBase contract address, for the capabilities that take one.
questionNoProposition, for prediction.evidence.
capabilityYesCapability id: token.metadata, chain.snapshot, contract.guard or prediction.evidence.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / artifactId
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Artifact id, for evidence.artifact.",
-  "pattern": "^sha256:[a-f0-9]{64}$",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / capability / description
      Previous value: -"Capability id, for example token.metadata or contract.guard."New value: +"Capability id: token.metadata, chain.snapshot, contract.guard or prediction.evidence."
    • addedInput schema / properties / question
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Proposition, for prediction.evidence.",
+  "maxLength": 2000,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / url
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Public page URL, for web.compile.",
-  "maxLength": 2048,
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 call is 'Free', that it does not bind a quote or reveal a wallet (safety/side-effect notes), and explains the hit/partial/miss semantics of the reuse tiers. This goes beyond a bare functional statement and covers key behavioral aspects. It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication, but those are less critical for an indicative price tool.

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?

The description is tightly written: three sentences, front-loaded with 'Free.' and then immediately explains purpose and return states. No wasted words. Each sentence contributes essential information. It's a model of conciseness.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the output semantics (hit/partial/miss) and their meaning. It covers the cost, the reuse concept, and the non-binding nature. It doesn't specify the exact response format (fields, types), but the conceptual explanation is sufficient for an agent to understand what it will receive. It could mention error cases or timeouts, but overall it's quite complete for the tool's purpose.

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% (all parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the concept of 'one specific input' and does not enrich parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't clarify the relationship between address/question and capability, but that is already in the schema. Marginal value added.

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?

The description clearly states a specific verb-resource pair: 'indicative price and reuse tier' for a given input. It explains the three possible return states (hit, partial, miss) and what they mean. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like token_metadata or chain_snapshot, which are data-fetching tools rather than pricing/quote tools. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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?

The description implies usage (check cost before a call) and scopes to 'one specific input', but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It never references sibling tools or provides exclusion criteria. An agent must infer that this is a pre-flight pricing check, which is a minor gap but not a fatal one.

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

All Tereno on Base toolsInspect
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