Skip to main content
Glama

Seneschal Data

by io.github.Rotwang9000

Top up an existing watch (paid via x402 at REST)

seneschal_private_watch_topup

Add prepaid credit to an existing Private Watch. Three tiers — $0.10 (default), $1.00, and $5.00 — each settling at the matching REST path (/v1/private/topup, /topup-1, /topup-5). Credit is in atomic USDC ($0.02/day idle, $0.005/call). This tool returns the URL the agent should POST to with its x402 client; it does NOT settle payment itself.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tierNoTop-up size. 10c = $0.10 (≈5 days idle), 1 = $1.00 (≈50 days), 5 = $5.00 (≈250 days).10c
watchIdYesThe watchId returned from create.
watchTokenYesThe watchToken returned from create (constant-time compared at the REST surface).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / watchId / description
      Previous value: -"The watchId returned from seneschal_private_watch_create."New value: +"The watchId returned from create."
    • changedInput schema / properties / watchToken / description
      Previous value: -"The watchToken returned from seneschal_private_watch_create (constant-time compared at the REST surface)."New value: +"The watchToken returned from create (constant-time compared at the REST surface)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'This tool returns the URL the agent should POST to with its x402 client; it does NOT settle payment itself.' It also explains the tier-to-path mapping and credit rates. While it doesn't mention side effects or error handling, the key gotcha is well-covered.

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?

The description is concise and efficiently front-loaded: it states the purpose first, then tiers/paths, then rates, then the critical note about not settling. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. There is no fluff or padding.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with 3 params, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is quite complete. It explains the return value (a URL), the prerequisite (existing watch from create), and the payment mechanism. It lacks error handling or edge-case notes, but given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the practical meaning of tiers ($0.10, $1.00, $5.00), the rates, and the REST paths, which go beyond the enum values and parameter descriptions. This enhances the agent's understanding of what each tier costs and how the top-up translates to usage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add prepaid credit to an existing Private Watch.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of x402 and REST distinguishes it from the crypto sibling. The title and description align to make the tool's function unmistakable.

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?

The description gives clear context: it's for topping up via x402, and explicitly notes the tool does NOT settle payment itself. This implies when to use this tool versus the crypto counterpart, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions. Thus, clear context with no explicit exclusions.

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

All Seneschal Data toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by domain (board, private_watch, zecmon) with clear lifecycle separation, but seneschal_list_at_risk_borrowers and seneschal_list_borrowers overlap heavily, and the USDC vs crypto variants of private_watch_create/topup could be confused without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a seneschal_<domain>_<action> pattern, but verb/noun order varies (get_borrower vs list_borrowers vs board_list) and outliers like seneschal_health and seneschal_q break the pattern.

Tool Count3/5

At 35 tools, the server is definitely heavy, but it covers multiple distinct domains (DeFi data, privacy-chain monitoring, notice boards, payments), so the count is at the high end of reasonable rather than absurdly bloated.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: borrower discovery/analysis, liquidations, private watch lifecycle, Zcash scanning lifecycle, board operations, and checkout invoices. Minor gaps like board deletion or watch cancellation exist but are workaround-able.

Resources