Skip to main content
Glama

Robyn — Gasless Cross-Chain for AI Agents

by io.github.ox31461

Signed proof of what was spent

robyn_spend_statement

A statement of every transfer in a window with each fee broken down, SIGNED by Robyn's relayer key (EIP-191). Use this when you must PROVE to a principal what you spent — your own summary is a claim by the party being audited, but this is verifiable against a published address without trusting you or Robyn. Read limitations and repeat them: the statement covers the Robyn float lane only and excludes other rails and the custodial netting book, so it may not be a complete picture of activity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNowindow length, default 30, max 365
addressNorestrict to transfers whose record names this sender

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does so by explaining the statement is signed via EIP-191, verifiable against a published address, and explicitly states the coverage limitations: only the Robyn float lane, excluding other rails and netting book. This is strong behavioral context beyond a simple read-only hint, though it does not mention auth or rate limits.

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 two sentences but rich with information. It front-loads the core function, then gives usage context and limitations. It's not overly long, though the 'Read limitations and repeat them' phrasing adds a minor imperative tone.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, signed nature, and limitations. It doesn't describe the exact return payload or verification steps, but the EIP-191 mention and 'verifiable against a published address' provide enough for an agent to infer usage. It's fairly complete for this tool.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already covers. The description mentions 'window' and 'record names this sender' but these mirror the schema descriptions.

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 tool produces a signed statement of every transfer in a window with fee breakdowns, and explicitly distinguishes it from an 'own summary' claim. This is specific and differentiates from sibling statement tools by highlighting the signed/provable nature.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you must PROVE to a principal what you spent', and contrasts with the less trustworthy own summary. It also warns about limitations, though it doesn't name alternative sibling tools directly, the contrast with own summary implies the alternative.

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

All Robyn — Gasless Cross-Chain for AI Agents toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources