AgentCore-compatible task router; free top-1 recommendation or paid $0.01 ranked top-three with ghost-bid counterfactual pricing, qualified handoff and receipt binding. $0.01/call via x402.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| max_price | Yes | ||
| price_cap | No | ||
| constraints | No | ||
| output_format | No | ||
| preferred_rail | No | ||
| prior_bid_atomic | No | ||
| seller_delivery_receipt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / max_priceAdded value: +{
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "number"
+}Input schema / properties / prior_bid_atomicAdded value: +{
+ "minimum": 0,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "task"
-]New value: +[
+ "task",
+ "max_price"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing side effects, requirements, and safety. It mentions pricing, handoff, and receipt binding, which hint at behavior, but these are unexplained jargon. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what resources are consumed, or what the consequences are. The 'ghost-bid counterfactual pricing' and 'qualified handoff' are opaque, and the tool's actual effect is unclear.
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 a single dense sentence that packs in multiple concepts without prioritization. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information (what it does and when to use it) and is heavy with domain-specific jargon that obscures rather than clarifies. Appropriately sized but poorly structured.
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 tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotated safety profile, and no output schema, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain the return format, the meaning of most parameters, the difference between the free and paid tiers, and the routing mechanism. An agent would be unable to call this tool correctly without substantial additional information from elsewhere.
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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only hints at pricing (free vs. paid) and mention of 'receipt binding' may relate to seller_delivery_receipt, but it does not map parameters like max_price, price_cap, constraints, output_format, or preferred_rail to specific meanings. The description adds minimal value over the raw parameter names.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('task router') but is vague about what routing entails and doesn't differentiate it from sibling tools like route_task or mpp_route. It mentions pricing options but doesn't clarify the core output or behavior, making the purpose only partially clear.
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 the sibling routers (route_task, mpp_route). The description does not mention any context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess which router fits a given task.
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.
Several tool groups are nearly indistinguishable: wallet_analyze, wallet_spy, and base_wallet_profile all inspect wallets; batch_extract, batch_url_json, and x401_batch_extract all batch-extract URLs; route_task, agentcore_route, and mpp_route all perform routing. An agent would need to read very carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.
All names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or namespace pattern: many are noun-only (inference, echo, sentiment, server_time), some are prefixed by domain (bazaar_, base_, x402_, rep_), and action prefixes vary widely (fetch_, compile_, extract_, purchase_, route_). The naming is readable but not predictable across the set.
Seventy tools is an extremely large surface for an agent to choose from, and most appear to be independent paid service wrappers. This exceeds the 50+ extreme mismatch threshold in the calibration and creates an overwhelming selection problem.
Relative to its apparent purpose—exposing x402 payments and Bazaar market data—the coverage is extensive: diagnostics, preflight, settlement verification, receipt lookup, wallet checks, Bazaar analytics, web extraction, and text processing are all represented. The main gaps are operational side-effects like creating or updating a Bazaar listing, but those appear to be outside this read/purchase surface.