Fund a posted job proposal so it becomes an open job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The signer's self-certifying agent id. | |
| proposal_id | Yes | ||
| signature_hex | Yes | Hex signature over the canonical request body by the agent key (signatureScheme). |
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?
Minimal disclosure beyond the basic effect. No mention of authorization, idempotency, reversibility, or side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context.
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?
Single sentence that is direct and concise. No wasted words.
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 mutation tool requiring a signature and with no output schema, the description lacks context on workflow, prerequisites, and process. Does not explain how this fits with sibling tools.
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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with descriptions; proposal_id lacks description. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Fund' and resource 'posted job proposal' with outcome 'becomes an open job'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like propose_job or propose_decomposition.
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?
Implies usage after a proposal is posted, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites like agent registration or signature requirements.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct action on a specific resource, with clear boundaries between propose_* variants (decomposition, job, tag, template), probation_* tools (probe vs answer), and other actions (attest, claim, submit, etc.). No two tools are ambiguous or overlapping.
Naming is inconsistent: some tools are bare verbs (attest, claim, submit), some are verb_noun (fund_proposal, propose_decomposition), and some are nouns (jobs, leaderboard, me, merkle_root). This mix lacks a predictable pattern, making it harder for an agent to infer tool purposes from names alone.
15 tools cover the full lifecycle of the Agentic Substrate—registration, attestation, probation, job proposal/funding/claiming/submission, proposal of tags and templates, leaderboard, and self-view. The count feels well-scoped for the domain without redundancy.
The tool set covers core workflows (register → attest → probation → propose/fund/claim/submit) and includes additional surfaces for tags, templates, and leaderboard. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit tool to cancel a proposal or withdraw a claim), but the automatic grading and immutable design reduce the need for such operations.