robyn_plus_claimSubmit BLINDED tokens (base64, from plus-sdk blindTokens()) with the payment txHash. Payment is verified on-chain (recipient, amount, confirmation; one tx pays one invoice), then each blinded token is signed blind. Unblind locally (plus-sdk claim() does all of this). This tool never sees an unblinded pass.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txHash | No | EVM payment tx; omit for btc | |
| blinded | Yes | ||
| invoiceId | Yes |
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 zero annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: the tool never sees an unblinded pass (privacy guarantee), payment verification steps, each blinded token is signed blind, and unblinding happens locally via the SDK. This is strong disclosure for an unannotated 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 compact — two sentences plus a short privacy note — and front-loads the core action and inputs. Minor redundancy exists ('plus-sdk claim() does all of this' restates the local unblinding point), but no wasted sentences overall.
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?
Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers inputs, prerequisites (payment verified, one tx per invoice), flow (blind signing, local unblinding), and a key privacy property. Missing detail like the exact return format is understandable given the blind-signing protocol, making this reasonably complete.
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 only 33% (txHash described). The description compensates partially by explaining the blinded array's source and format ('base64, from plus-sdk blindTokens()') and implying txHash is the EVM payment tx. However, invoiceId is never semantically explained beyond its required status, leaving a notable 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 states a specific action ('Submit BLINDED tokens... with the payment txHash') targeting a clear resource (blind signature claim after payment). It distinguishes from sibling tools like robyn_plus_info, robyn_plus_invoice, and robyn_plus_invoice_status by scoping precisely to the claim phase (after payment, signed blind).
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?
Provides clear usage context: tokens come from plus-sdk blindTokens(), payment is verified on-chain (recipient, amount, confirmation; one tx per invoice), and txHash is omitted for BTC (from schema). It does not explicitly name alternatives to exclude, but the phase-specific context ('after paying') gives adequate position among siblings.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as robyn_quote, robyn_prepare, robyn_settle, robyn_cross_chain, robyn_plan, robyn_preflight, and robyn_preflight_full, all involving routing or quoting. Although descriptions are detailed, the high number of subtly different tools makes selection error-prone.
All tools follow a consistent <prefix>_<verb/noun> pattern, with robyn_ and null_ as clear category prefixes. Verbs like prepare, submit, verify and nouns like quote, plan, mesh are highly predictable throughout.
With 70 tools, the count far exceeds the 25+ heavy threshold. While the service scope is broad (payments, messaging, netting, Plus, yield, etc.), many tools could be merged or tiered, making the set feel overly large and burdensome for an agent.
The surface covers the full lifecycle from quoting, planning, submitting, verifying, auditing to messaging, custody, yield, and mandates, plus sandbox, lint, and recipes. A few advanced operations like cancellation or revocation are missing, but no critical gaps remain.