Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
nano-pay

nano-pay

by Feeless402
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

faucet_claim

Claim free XNO from a Feeless402 faucet when your wallet is empty, automatically solving the proof-of-work challenge.

Instructions

Claim free starter XNO from a Feeless402 faucet (solves the faucet's proof-of-work challenge automatically; may take ~1 min of CPU). Use when the wallet is empty.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "faucet_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
faucet_urlNohttps://feeless402.com

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by noting the automatic proof-of-work solving and the ~1 minute CPU time. It does not cover failure modes or side effects, but for a simple faucet claim this is reasonably transparent.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant information. The main action is front-loaded, and the behavioral note and usage advice are both pertinent.

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 simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and key behavioral details. The only notable gap is lack of parameter explanation, but that is minor given the simple optional parameter with a default.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter (faucet_url) with 0% description coverage. The description never mentions this parameter or explains how to customize it, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage. The only indirect reference is the faucet name Feeless402, which aligns with the default value but adds no semantic guidance.

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 states a specific action: 'Claim free starter XNO from a Feeless402 faucet', clearly identifying the resource and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the faucet claim mechanism rather than payment or quote tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'Use when the wallet is empty' provides clear contextual guidance for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools