BlindOracle

submit_oracle_job

Submit an oracle feed job by specifying required symbols, with optional sources and payment proof for payment verification.

Instructions

Submit Oracle Feed job with payment @requirement: REQ-MCP-001 - Public job submission @requirement: REQ-PAY-001 - Payment verification gate Properties: Alignment(+0.3), Autonomy(+0.5)

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": {
      "symbols": "<symbols>"
    },
    "name": "submit_oracle_job"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sources`	No
`symbols`	Yes
`payment_proof`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It only mentions 'with payment' and cryptic 'Properties: Alignment(+0.3), Autonomy(+0.5)', which add no standard behavioral context like side effects, permissions, or result handling.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short but includes non-standard lines (@requirement, Properties) that add clutter without clear benefit. It could be more focused and structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (3 params, many siblings, no annotations), the description lacks completeness: no parameter guidance, usage context, or behavioral details. Output schema exists but not referenced.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter explanations in the description. The description does not add meaning to any parameter (e.g., payment_proof not linked to payment). Parameters remain undocumented beyond schema.

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?

The description clearly states 'Submit Oracle Feed job with payment', which specifies the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like submit_prediction_job, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction needed for a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The @requirement lines hint at prerequisites (public submission, payment verification), but there is no guidance on when to use this vs other submit tools or exclusions. The description fails to provide explicit context for choosing this tool.

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