Skip to main content
Glama

Sato Hub: Onchain Agents

by ai.satohub

Turn a goal into a build stack

onchain_agent_recommend_stack
Read-onlyIdempotent

USE WHEN someone describes an agent they want to build and needs concrete components rather than general advice. Give it the goal in plain words; it returns a trust-ranked stack of real directory resources — bucketed into slots (framework, wallet, payments, trading, data, MCP tooling, security), each pick carrying its Sato Score, liveness, and deploy-spec status, plus honest gaps where the directory has no strong match. Ranking reflects openness/activity/verifiability — never a safety, quality, or returns judgment. Read-only.

Example: { goal: "trading agent on Base with x402 payments", chain: "Base" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
goalYesWhat the agent should do, in plain words — e.g. 'trading agent on Base with x402 payments'
chainNoPreferred chain (e.g. Base, Solana)
max_per_slotNoMax picks per stack slot (default 3)
verified_onlyNoTrue = only picks whose documented install was reproduced in a container by Sato Hub. Slots with no verified pick are reported in `gaps` rather than widened.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (human-readable, default) or 'json' (machine-readable).markdown

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / verified_only
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "True = only picks whose documented install was reproduced in a container by Sato Hub. Slots with no verified pick are reported in `gaps` rather than widened.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that ranking reflects openness/activity/verifiability and explicitly disclaims any safety, quality, or returns judgment. It also documents the 'honest gaps' behavior when no strong directory match exists, adding real 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the use trigger, then compactly covers output composition, per-pick fields, ranking caveats, and an example. Every sentence contributes information without padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema present, the description takes on the burden of describing return values and does so concretely: trust-ranked stack, slot buckets, Sato Score, liveness, deploy-spec status, and gaps. The example and annotations complete the picture for an agent deciding whether to call it and what to expect.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to re-document parameters. The added example with goal and chain illustrates parameter usage, but most parameter meaning is already carried by the schema.

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 states a specific action and resource: turning a plain-language goal into a trust-ranked stack of directory resources bucketed into slots. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get/search tools, which fetch or search individual resources rather than assembling a build stack.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description opens with an explicit 'USE WHEN' trigger: someone describes an agent they want to build and needs concrete components rather than general advice. It does not name sibling alternatives like onchain_agent_search_resources, but the selection context is clear and actionable.

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

All Sato Hub: Onchain 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly the same niche: onchain_agent_get_changes and onchain_agent_recent_changes both describe directory change feeds, and onchain_agent_get_agent_economy overlaps with onchain_agent_get_metrics for aggregate on-chain figures. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent selecting between these pairs is likely to misroute.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the onchain_agent_ prefix and almost all follow verb_noun naming (get_, list_, search_, recommend_stack). The main deviation is onchain_agent_recent_changes, which uses an adjective_noun form instead of a verb, and get_agent_passport repeats 'agent' awkwardly after the prefix.

Tool Count4/5

At 16 tools the server sits just above the ideal 3-15 range, but the scope is broad: directory search, registry lookups, skills, wiki, news, metrics, change feeds, and stack recommendations. No tool feels purely decorative, though the two change tools could be consolidated.

Completeness5/5

For a read-only data server, the surface is remarkably complete: every major entity type (resources, agents, skills, wiki pages, news, metrics) has search/list and get access, plus deploy specs, change sync, and recommendation. The only caveats are documented rollout gaps like deploy_spec not existing for every resource.

Resources