Bind a live Agent-Rider contract (ctr_…) to a residual plane. Emits a residual marker fingerprint. Prefer exactness.passed contracts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame_id | No | Smart Frame id, default SF-Root | |
| plane_hint | No | Preferred CDDG plane 0..359 | |
| contract_id | Yes | e.g. ctr_1ec3e1bdb32541f0 | |
| rider_token | Yes | Your Agent Rider JWT — obtain one via POST /api/rider/issue |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions emitting a residual marker fingerprint but does not clarify whether this is the return value or a side effect, nor does it describe side effects, reversibility, or error behavior. The mutation aspect of 'bind' is implied but not elaborated.
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 concise, front-loads the action, and avoids redundancy. However, the final sentence about 'exactness.passed contracts' is confusing and detracts from clarity, though it still maintains an efficient structure.
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 binding tool without annotations or an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the return value, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., contract existence, plane validity), or how the binding is manifested. The fingerprint mention is vague, and an agent would not know what to expect on success or failure.
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 100%, so all parameters are well documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal extra context beyond the schema, such as emphasizing the contract_id format and the rider_token authentication source, but does not provide substantive new semantic meaning to the parameters.
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 clearly states the action (bind) and the resource (a live Agent-Rider contract to a residual plane), distinguishing it from sibling list/query tools by the verb 'bind'. However, the final phrase 'Prefer exactness.passed contracts' is ambiguous and adds confusion without clarifying the tool's exact purpose.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like cddg_list_bindings or cddg_query_plane. The phrase 'Prefer exactness.passed contracts' hints at a precondition but is cryptic and not actionable for an agent deciding between options.
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.