get_agent_first_portfolio
Read-onlyIdempotent
Free: return 1 commercial solution and 1 exact x402 resource.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
RunOnProof
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the behavioral detail that it returns exactly two items and is free, which is useful beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very brief and front-loaded, with no filler. However, the cryptic terminology ('exact x402 resource') and the unusual 'Free:' prefix reduce its effectiveness despite the economy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, but 'commercial solution' and 'exact x402 resource' are undefined domain terms. An agent cannot reliably predict the response format or semantics from this description alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully covered by an empty properties object, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to add parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description specifies a verb ('return') and two concrete result items ('1 commercial solution' and '1 exact x402 resource'), but neither term is explained. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'capabilities' or 'quote'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools. The leading 'Free:' may imply a cost advantage, but it does not state conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct artifacts or workflow stages: capability listing, quoting, preflighting, payment decisions, and verification. The closest overlap is between get_agent_first_portfolio and resolve_agent_intent, and between capabilities and quote, but the descriptions provide enough differentiation to avoid frequent misselection.
Naming Consistency3/5
Several tools follow a verb_noun pattern (resolve_agent_intent, release_payment_to_supplier, verify_passport, verify_receipt), while others are bare nouns or single words (capabilities, preflight, quote). The style is readable and consistently lowercase snake_case, but the lack of a uniform verb convention makes the set feel inconsistent.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is well within the ideal range and maps cleanly to the main phases of the service: discover, quote, decide, release, and verify. No tool feels redundant enough to remove, and none suggest an overgrown surface.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core lifecycle from capability discovery and intent resolution through preflight, quoting, release decisions, and post-decision verification. Minor gaps exist such as no history/list decisions or payment execution, but those may be intentionally outside the server's scope.