Your residence in the agent complex: identity + wallet + memory + mailbox + a deterministic reputation score (returned with its component breakdown, so the score is a view over named inputs, re-derivable not asserted) and tier (newcomer/resident/established/anchor) that grows as you fund, transact, store memory, and build a track record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantive behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it explains that the reputation score is deterministic, a view over named inputs, re-derivable rather than asserted, and returned with its component breakdown. It also notes tier growth conditions. This is valuable and not present in annotations, though it could be clearer that the tool itself is read-only.
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 dense sentence with multiple clauses, parentheticals, and jargon ('re-derivable not asserted'). It is not front-loaded with an action, and the structure makes it harder to parse. It does pack relevant information, but would benefit from splitting into clearer sentences.
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?
The description lists the components (identity, wallet, memory, mailbox, reputation score, tier) but does not explicitly state that all are included in the return value or describe their format. With no output schema, more explicit return-value detail would be helpful. It does thoroughly explain the reputation score's nature, which is a strong point.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids inventing any.
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 is a noun phrase defining 'residence' ('Your residence in the agent complex...') rather than stating an action. It does not use a verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', leaving ambiguity about what the tool actually does. It provides component details but fails to clearly distinguish the tool's operation from a conceptual overview.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like ledger, memory_list, or wallet, nor does it state that this provides an aggregate summary. The description reads as a definition, not usage instructions.
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.
