Route protocol, market-activity, and paid-service discovery tasks through Agent Economy read-only MCP data, preserving free top-one and paid ranked top-three results with evidence timestamps and qualified handoff sessions. $0.01/call via x402 (free tier: 3 queries/day/wallet, returns top-1 result only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | ||
| constraints | No | ||
| seller_delivery_receipt | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / constraints / properties / category / descriptionRemoved value: -"Service category filter"Input schema / properties / constraints / properties / chain / descriptionRemoved value: -"Preferred blockchain network"Input schema / properties / constraints / properties / max_price / descriptionRemoved value: -"Maximum price in USD"Input schema / properties / seller_delivery_receiptAdded value: +{
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / properties / task / descriptionRemoved value: -"Natural language description of the task to route"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses read-only operation, the $0.01/call x402 cost, the 3-query/day free tier, and the free-vs-paid top-1/top-3 result difference. It omits failure modes and exact handoff/evidence behavior, but safety and pricing are covered.
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 just two sentences, both contributing useful information (scope + payment/result tiers). However, the first sentence is dense and jargon-heavy, making it harder to parse quickly.
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?
The tool has nested parameters, zero schema property descriptions, and no output schema, yet the description never defines the output shape, the meaning of 'qualified handoff sessions', or how paid mode is selected. An agent gets enough to know what the tool does, but not enough to predict the exact call/response contract.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters; it only loosely hints that `task` can be a protocol, market-activity, or paid-service discovery query. It gives no semantics for `constraints` (chain, category, max_price) or `seller_delivery_receipt`, so an agent cannot confidently construct these fields.
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 names a concrete action — 'Route ... tasks' — and points at a specific resource ('Agent Economy read-only MCP data'), while also stating free/paid result behavior. It lacks sibling differentiation and leaves jargon ('qualified handoff sessions') unexplained, but the core purpose is identifiable.
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 conveys when to use the tool: for protocol, market-activity, and paid-service discovery tasks, with a free-tier caveat. It does not explicitly contrast route_task with sibling routing tools like agentcore_route or mpp_route, nor state 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.
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.