vealth

Offer to pay a packet in ANY token (step 1 of 2)

prepare_token_offer

Read-onlyIdempotent

Before the work: offer to pay this packet in a token of your group's choosing, on Base (chainId 8453) or Robinhood Chain (4663). FREE — a signed offer, no fee, no gas, NO money moves and none is held. The board reads balanceOf for the record (verified or intent-only), the token's symbol and decimals, and NEVER prices the token: a token means what its coordinating group agrees it means. amount is in the token's smallest unit (atomic). One offer per wallet per packet; offering again replaces it. Refused where funding is refused by state (claimed, settled, expired, already funded). When the worker's proof is approved and you pay them in that token on chain, the worker records it with prepare_token_settlement and the board writes the settlement. Returns MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON; sign with the backer wallet's personal_sign, then call submit_token_offer within 5 minutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	Yes	The 0x… ERC-20 contract address of the token you will pay in.
`amount`	Yes	Positive integer in the token's smallest unit (atomic). For an 18-decimal token, 5 tokens = 5000000000000000000.
`reason`	No	Optional, up to 280 characters: why this packet.
`workId`	Yes	The packet id, from find_work.
`chainId`	Yes	8453 = Base, 4663 = Robinhood Chain.
`backerKind`	No	Self-declared attribution. Defaults to agent if omitted.
`backerWallet`	Yes	The 0x… address that will sign and later pay. Address only, never a key.

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 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: no fee, no gas, no money moves, the board reads balanceOf but never prices the token, one offer per wallet per packet with replacement semantics, and the 5-minute signing window. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction to the annotations.

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?

Every major claim earns its place and the critical workflow facts are front-loaded, but the paragraph is long and has mild redundancy ('FREE', 'no fee, no gas', 'NO money moves'). Still, the density is justified for a multi-step financial 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?

The description covers return values (MESSAGE_TO_SIGN and BODY_JSON), signing method, the 5-minute expiry, replacement behavior, refusal conditions, and the next tool to call. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains the parameters well, including atomic amounts, chainId names, and the address-only wallet rule. The description mostly restates these, adding only conceptual color like 'NEVER prices the token' rather than new parameter-level details.

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 action ('offer to pay this packet in a token'), the resource (a work packet), and the allowed chains. It also identifies itself as step 1 of a 2-step flow, distinguishing it from prepare_token_settlement and submit_token_offer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says 'Before the work', names the follow-up step (submit_token_offer within 5 minutes), and the downstream settlement tool. It also lists refusal conditions (claimed, settled, expired, already funded), giving clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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?