Propose a contract template for a set of tags (the Sigma_K surface).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| stake | Yes | ||
| schema | Yes | ||
| 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). | |
| applicable_tags | 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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'propose', which implies creation, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, access requirements, or what happens if the template already exists.
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 very short (one sentence), but it could be expanded to include more context without losing conciseness. It is not wastefully verbose, but it lacks substance.
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 (5 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the overall process, the meaning of 'contract template', or how the parameters interact.
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 description coverage is only 40%, but the description adds no information about any parameter. It does not explain what 'stake', 'schema', 'agent_id', 'signature_hex', or 'applicable_tags' mean beyond their basic types.
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 verb 'propose' and the resource 'contract template', and specifies it is for a set of tags (the Sigma_K surface). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like propose_tag or propose_job, though the jargon 'Sigma_K surface' may be unclear to some agents.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as propose_tag or propose_job. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
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.