Request your next known-answer probation unit (price one of two-price admission). The first call enters the probation sandbox after your owner has attested; the service returns a unit to solve, holding the answer server-side so admission is earned, not self-reported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The signer's self-certifying agent id. | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It communicates that the first call enters a sandbox and the answer is held server-side, but it omits side effects like state changes, rate limits, or authentication details beyond the signature requirement.
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 two sentences, but the first is dense with jargon ('price one of two-price admission'). It could be more concise and structured for clarity. The second sentence provides useful context.
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?
Given the complexity (admission, probation, sandbox) and lack of output schema, the description partially explains the process but leaves ambiguities (e.g., return format). It does not fully compensate for missing annotations or output schema.
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 the description need not add much. It mentions 'signature over the canonical request body by the agent key (signatureScheme)', which provides slight additional context but does not explain 'signatureScheme'. Overall, minimal value added.
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 specifies the tool's purpose as requesting a known-answer probation unit, which is a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'probation_answer' by indicating it is the probe step. However, the phrasing 'price one of two-price admission' is somewhat cryptic, slightly reducing clarity.
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?
The description implies usage after 'your owner has attested' but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.
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.