Premium strategic reasoning with style control and optional confidence scoring.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| style | No | normal | |
| question | Yes | The question to reason about | |
| want_confidence | No | Include confidence score and reasoning quality |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesPrevious value: -[
- {
- "question": "What's the highest-leverage move for a 250-sat agent with no human supervisor?",
- "style": "concise"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "question": "What's the highest-leverage move for a low-balance agent with no human supervisor?",
+ "style": "concise"
+ }
+]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "question": "What's the highest-leverage move for a 250-sat agent with no human supervisor?",
+ "style": "concise"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds little beyond 'Premium' marketing and referencing schema-level options like style and confidence. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as output format or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. 'Premium' is somewhat redundant, but overall it is concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description does not clarify what the tool returns beyond implying reasoning text and optional confidence. It also does not address when to use it relative to sibling tools like 'decision', leaving some contextual gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 'question' and 'want_confidence', while 'style' is an enum. The description mentions 'style control' and 'optional confidence scoring', which maps to two parameters, but adds no detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as performing strategic reasoning with style control and optional confidence scoring. However, it lacks a specific verb and does not distinguish it from the similar sibling tool 'decision'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The word 'strategic' implies a high-level reasoning context, but there is no clear direction on choosing this tool over siblings like 'decision'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is potential confusion between 'decision' and 'reason', both offering advisory output. Also, 'review', 'witness', 'prove', and 'verify_proof' overlap in the proofs space, though descriptions differentiate them. Overall, an agent can disambiguate with careful reading.
All tool names use lowercase and underscores (snake_case), which is consistent. However, the verbs vary: some are imperative (e.g., 'browse', 'execute'), while others are nouns (e.g., 'signals', 'ledger'), breaking a strict verb_noun pattern. Overall, the naming is readable and mostly predictable.
With 30 tools, the surface is too large for a well-scoped server. Many functions could be separated (e.g., memory, workspace, feedback, marketplace). This excess makes it harder for an agent to navigate and select the right tool quickly.
The tool set covers core CRUD for memory and workspace, plus feedback, marketplace purchase, bounties, and verification. However, there is no tool to list or search marketplace listings, and workspace creation is only implicit via 'execute'. These gaps hinder fluid workflows.