Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

cce_challenge

Challenge suspected fake CCE receipts by staking 1 AWC; providers must re-attest within 900 seconds or the receipt is voided and stake burned. Simulated receipts are not eligible.

Instructions

Challenge a CCE receipt you believe is fake. Burns 1 AWC from the challenger (paid to the provider if the challenge fails). The provider must re-attest with a fresh output hash within 900s via the attest route, or the receipt is voided and the stake burned. Simulated- economy receipts (work_class=sim) are not challengeable.

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": {
      "contribution_id": "<contribution_id>",
      "challenger_id": "<challenger_id>"
    },
    "name": "cce_challenge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
challenger_idYes
contribution_idYes
expected_output_hashNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

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 and does so well: it discloses the 1 AWC cost, where that stake goes on failure, the 900s re-attestation deadline, and the voiding outcome. It leaves open what the challenger receives if the challenge succeeds and whether the action is idempotent or requires auth.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying distinct load: action, economic cost, provider deadline/outcome, and the exemption. The critical cost consequence is front-loaded right after the action, with no filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The economic mechanics are well covered for a staked mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, but the 0% parameter documentation and the unstated success outcome (who receives the burned stake) leave real gaps. An agent could act, but not fully predict the result or parameter usage.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must explain contribution_id, challenger_id, and especially the optional expected_output_hash — and it explains none of them. The phrase 'fresh output hash' gestures at the hash concept but never ties it to the parameter or says whether supplying it changes dispute semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Challenge a CCE receipt') with the qualifying condition ('you believe is fake'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like cce_attest and cce_verify_receipt_info. An agent knows exactly what action this performs without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger ('you believe is fake') and an explicit exclusion ('Simulated-economy receipts (work_class=sim) are not challengeable'), and points to the provider's counterpart path ('the attest route'). It stops short of telling the agent to verify first via cce_verify_receipt_info or of naming a sibling alternative when a challenge is inappropriate.

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