vealth

Lay a wallet's titles beside a job's requirements, six words, human decides

compare_titles

Read-onlyIdempotent

Machine comparison, human decision. Give a wallet and the requirements of a job or project; each requirement comes back as exactly one of six words: verified_match (declared, current, and on-chain-confirmed board work in scope), verified_mismatch (the record contradicts the requirement), supported (declared, nothing contradicts it, no board work yet), unknown (the record does not say), expired (declared expiry passed), human_judgment_required (a human reads it: years of experience, free text). The reply never says qualified and never decides; it carries a receipt hash the decider can anchor for free. Public mirror: https://vealth.net/labor/worker//compare?require=CHST,STS. Free, keyless, read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wallet`	Yes	The worker's wallet address (0x…).
`require`	Yes	Requirements: a comma list of titles (comma = each required, \| = any of, e.g. "CHST,STS\|STSC"), or a JSON array of {kind:"title",anyOf:[…],issuer?,mustBeCurrent?} / {kind:"years_experience",years,area?} / {kind:"text",text}.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`tool`	No
`funded`	No
`payUsd`	No
`workId`	No
`claimId`	No
`claimable`	No
`next_call`	No
`proofRule`	No
`fulfillableBy`	No
`definitionOfDone`	No
`needs_from_caller`	No
`notClaimableReason`	No

Schema Changelog

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

AddedSep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description adds substantial behavioral detail: every requirement maps to exactly one of six semantic categories, the reply never decides or says 'qualified,' and it includes a receipt hash for anchoring. This is rich context that helps an agent correctly interpret results.

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?

The description is dense and front-loaded, with the core 'machine comparison, human decision' sentence first and the six output words defined compactly. It loses a point for the redundant 'read-only' closing (already in annotations) and the public mirror URL, which add marginal value for an agent selecting or invoking the tool.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the six-way classification semantics and the receipt-hash behavior, the description is nearly complete on its own. The output schema exists, so return-field details need not be explained in prose. An agent knows enough to invoke it correctly and interpret all possible outcomes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100 percent, with detailed schema descriptions for both wallet and require. The tool description reinforces the job-vs-requirements framing but does not add syntax or semantics beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 and title clearly identify a comparison tool: a wallet's titles are placed beside a job's requirements, and each requirement resolves to one of six enumerated words. This is distinct from sibling tools like worker_titles (which likely lists titles) and verify_work (which likely verifies a single fact).

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 states the stated usage context: give a wallet and the requirements of a job or project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the comparison purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when this tool is relevant.

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

All vealth tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation5/5

Despite 41 tools, each has a highly specific purpose with detailed descriptions that clearly differentiate them. The prepare_/submit_ pairs, domain-specific prefixes (gmx_, regen_), and distinct action types (find, get, verify, etc.) leave little room for confusion. Even closely related tools like funding_quote and prepare_funding or my_work and my_votes are explicitly distinguished.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use plain nouns (account_statement, board_stats), others use verb_noun patterns (prepare_*, submit_*, get_*), possessive (my_votes, my_work), or descriptive phrases (how_to_claim, retire_and_certify). While not chaotic, the lack of a single consistent pattern reduces predictability. However, prefixes like gmx_ and regen_ provide internal consistency within subdomains.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the count significantly exceeds the recommended range (3-15) and falls into the 'too many' category (25+). Although the server covers a wide range of features (work lifecycle, Regen governance, GMX trading, anchoring, carbon), this number can overwhelm agents and make selection challenging. A more focused tool set would improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the core workflows for its stated domains well: work posting/funding/claiming/proofing, Regen governance and token data, GMX position management, anchoring, and carbon estimation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no GMX order cancellation, no work deletion), but overall the surface is comprehensive enough to accomplish primary use cases without dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?