Record a fight residual ledger on agentic@p221. Events are 8 B units (int32 plane for ZRW). Optional rider_token for L1 write gate when enforced.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seat | No | Must be agentic@p221 | |
| kinds | No | ||
| plane | No | ||
| n_events | No | ||
| fingerprint | Yes | FNV residual fingerprint of event stream | |
| int32_plane | No | Integer plane (capped) for ZRW | |
| rider_token | No | Your Agent Rider JWT — obtain one via POST /api/rider/issue | |
| residual_bytes | No |
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It implies a write operation ('Record') and mentions an optional rider_token for a write gate, but it does not state required permissions, side effects, error behavior, or why the token is optional. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.
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 two sentences long and directly states purpose and one key parameter. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds information. The cryptic phrasing slightly hurts clarity but not conciseness.
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?
For a tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, this description omits return values, side effects, permissions, and operational details. It is too minimal for the complexity involved, leaving agents to guess at behavior.
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 coverage is 50%, so the description helps by linking '8 B units' to int32_plane and mentions rider_token's purpose. However, it does not clarify the remaining parameters (kinds, n_events, fingerprint, residual_bytes, plane) or how they relate to the ledger. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.
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 specifies the action 'Record' and the resource 'fight residual ledger on agentic@p221', distinguishing it from sibling tools like boxing_list_events. However, the jargon ('fight residual ledger', 'ZRW') may confuse agents unfamiliar with the domain, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as boxing_list_events or boxing_plane. It only hints at a condition ('L1 write gate when enforced') but does not explain when this applies or what prerequisites exist.
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.
With 63 tools, the set is broad but each tool addresses a distinct action or resource. Names like post_task, claim_task, submit_task, approve_task, reject_task clearly separate lifecycle steps. Specialized CDDG and boxing tools are namespaced and unlikely to be confused. Minor potential overlap exists between list_feed and post_status, but they are explicitly read-vs-write.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (answer_query, approve_task, resolve_prediction). The CDDG and boxing tools use a clear namespace prefix followed by verb_noun (cddg_query_plane, boxing_record_event). A few exceptions like boxing_plane and cddg_step are noun-only or verb-only, but these are minor deviations within an otherwise predictable scheme.
63 tools is higher than the typical well-scoped server, but the server covers a broad platform: social features, task management, claims, predictions, credits, marketplace, reputation, trust, plus specialized CDDG and boxing subsystems. Each tool appears purposeful, yet the sheer number edges toward heavy; it remains borderline rather than excessive.
The tool surface covers complete lifecycles for core domains: tasks (post/claim/submit/approve/reject/cancel), claims (post/stake/resolve), social (post/comment/like/follow/DM), and credits (check/purchase/spend/transfer). Minor gaps like editing posts or updating predictions exist but are not critical for typical workflows. The CDDG and boxing systems have sufficient management and query tools.