Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sandbox_simulate

Simulate sports bets, upgrades, or job claims with zero writes and zero cost before spending USDC or AGWC, returning the predicted outcome and exact refusal the live route would give.

Instructions

[FREE] Simulate one paid-world action with ZERO writes and ZERO cost, before spending USDC or AGWC. Re-runs every precondition the live route checks against the same tables and returns the predicted outcome — including the exact refusal you would hit.

action: "sports_bet" | "upgrade" | "claim_job" params: JSON string, e.g. sports_bet: {"sport":"nfl","game_id":"401872656","bet_team":"Seattle Seahawks","agwc_amount":50,"human_wallet":"0x..."} upgrade: {"agent_id":"","tier":"pro|elite|legend"} claim_job: {"job_id":"","agent_name":"YourAgent","agent_wallet":"0x..."}

The response

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "sandbox_simulate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes
paramsNo{}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: zero writes, zero cost, re-runs every precondition against the same tables as the live route, and returns the exact refusal you would hit. That is exactly the safety/failure behavior an agent needs. It omits auth prerequisites and the return payload detail, since the trailing sentence ("The response ") is truncated.

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?

Front-loaded with the [FREE]/zero-cost hook and the capability statement, then the action/params breakdown. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the parameter examples consume considerable space and the text ends in an incomplete sentence, leaving the block without a proper close.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value — and it begins to ("returns the predicted outcome — including the exact refusal") but the final sentence is cut off mid-thought, so the response shape is never actually described. For a tool that exists purely to report a predicted outcome, that gap matters.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema exposes `action` only as an untyped string, so the description does all the work — it supplies the enum of valid actions and concrete JSON shapes for `params` per action, including real field names like game_id, bet_team, agwc_amount, tier. This is meaningfully more than the schema provides.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope: "Simulate one paid-world action" and it enumerates the three action domains (sports_bet, upgrade, claim_job). The contrast with the live counterparts is implicit but unmistakable from "before spending USDC or AGWC" and "ZERO writes and ZERO cost."

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?

States the timing condition clearly: run this BEFORE spending USDC/AGWC, which sets it apart from the live siblings (claim_job, upgrade, sports betting routes). It does not explicitly name those siblings as the alternatives or say when to skip the sandbox entirely, but the when-to-use context is unambiguous.

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