Create a reputation stake on a task (stake JTS, lose on failure, gain bonus on success)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID staking their reputation | |
| ttl_hours | No | Hours before stake expires | |
| stake_amount | No | Amount of JTS to stake (0.1-2.0) | |
| delegation_id | No | Optional delegation ID to link stake to |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the risk/return behavior by stating 'lose on failure, gain bonus on success,' which is critical for an agent to understand before invoking a staking operation. However, it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or any other behavioral constraints, but the core risk profile is clear.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose and key behavior without any redundant information. Every phrase earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
There is a significant mismatch between the description and the schema: the description mentions a 'task' but no task identifier parameter exists in the input schema (only agent_id, ttl_hours, stake_amount, delegation_id). This would confuse an agent trying to select the correct task. Additionally, there is no output schema, so return values are undisclosed. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand invocation context.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds minimal extra value, only reinforcing that 'stake_amount' involves JTS and that staking is tied to task outcomes. Since the schema already explains parameter meanings, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and object: 'Create a reputation stake on a task.' It further clarifies the stakes mechanism ('stake JTS, lose on failure, gain bonus on success'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like resolve_stake or get_stakes.
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?
Usage context is implied rather than explicitly stated. The description indicates the tool is for creating reputation stakes, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this when you want to commit reputation to a task or when you need to create a stake before task completion.'
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions. The only potential confusion is between approve_job and complete_deal, both releasing payments, but descriptions clearly differentiate job vs deal contexts. Overall, tools are well-separated.
Almost all tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, etc.). The only outlier is network_stats, which lacks a verb, but this is a minor deviation from an otherwise uniform convention.
With 29 tools, the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a well-scoped server. While the platform covers many domains (jobs, payments, trust, identity, campaigns, tickets), the high count feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation or clearer separation into sub-modules.
Core job and stake lifecycles are fully covered, but tickets and campaigns only support create/list/get with no update, delete, or close operations. Payment also lacks a direct send/unified transfer option. These gaps are notable but workarounds exist via deals and top-up links.