Builders in Fintech

Search fintech products

search_products

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search fintech products by text, category, market, API availability, agent access (has_mcp, has_sandbox, has_api) or customer type. Each product carries an agent_access object (api_available, docs_url, openapi_url, sandbox_url, llms_txt_url, auth_method, mcp_url) when any of these is set. Company-provided, not part of the CC BY dataset. Each result carries provided_by, last_confirmed_at and sponsored; sponsorship never changes ordering. Arguments: q (or query) matched against name and short description; with no q the tool lists products alphabetically. cursor is the opaque next_cursor from a previous page. Unknown arguments are rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	q (or query): text to search for. Omit for a plain alphabetical list.
`limit`	No	Max rows (≤200).
`query`	No	Alias of q; q wins if both are sent.
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from the previous page.
`country`	No	Market. Country as a slug ('italy') or a two-letter ISO code ('IT'); case-insensitive.
`has_api`	No	Only products with an API (API flag, API documentation or OpenAPI spec).
`has_mcp`	No	Only products with a public MCP server.
`category`	No	Category slug, e.g. 'payments'.
`has_sandbox`	No	Only products with a sandbox.
`api_available`	No	Only products with (true) or without (false) an API.
`customer_type`	No	Customer type.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 14, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / has_api

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only products with an API (API flag, API documentation or OpenAPI spec).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / has_mcp

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only products with a public MCP server.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / has_sandbox

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Only products with a sandbox.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedOct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent safety, but the description adds substantive behavior the annotations don't: 'sponsorship never changes ordering', that unknown arguments are rejected, that results carry provided_by/last_confirmed_at/sponsored, and that the data is company-provided and not part of the CC BY dataset. That is real value beyond structured fields; it only lacks pagination/error semantics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The passage is front-loaded with the purpose and useful dataset/sponsorship caveats, but several sentences simply restate what the schema already documents (q/query matching, cursor, unknown-argument rejection), making it longer than it needs to be.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description usefully explains the agent_access object and provided_by/last_confirmed_at/sponsored fields a caller will encounter. Combined with the dataset attribution and sponsorship-ordering note, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination mechanics and relationships to sibling search tools are missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema, including q/query alias precedence and cursor. The description restates the q/query alias and cursor behavior but adds no new syntax or semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb+resource ('Search fintech products') and enumerates the filter dimensions (text, category, market, API availability, agent access, customer type). It reads as a well-scoped search tool, but it never differentiates itself from the many sibling search_* tools (search_organizations, search_people, search_content), so it stops short of 5.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never points to an alternative tool. It implies the tool is for product search, but with ~24 siblings the agent gets no help routing between this and search_content or find_providers.

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

All Builders in Fintech tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?