FindAgent

findagent_edit_price

Idempotent

Change the price of YOUR OWN agent (the audited price-edit). Pass the agent slug + price_type ('free' or 'paid') and, when paid, price_cents (US cents, max 50000 / $500). The change is owner-gated and recorded to an audit log. NOT retroactive: existing buyers keep their access. Only the agent's owner can call this; the change goes through the same validated path as the web price editor.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Your agent slug (you must own it).
`price_type`	Yes	'free' or 'paid'.
`price_cents`	No	Required when paid — integer US cents (1–50000). Ignored for free.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No
`changed`	No
`price_type`	No
`price_cents`	No
`instructions`	No

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the operation is owner-gated, recorded to an audit log, not retroactive for existing buyers, and follows the same validated path as the web price editor. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The action, scope, required parameters, constraints, and side effects are all front-loaded and each sentence adds necessary information.

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?

Given the rich annotations, complete input schema, and presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly: ownership, price bounds, paid/free behavior, non-retroactivity, and audit logging. Nothing essential is 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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description mostly restates schema information, though it does add the convenient '$500' equivalence and reinforces the 'ignored for free' behavior. With full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change the price of YOUR OWN agent'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like findagent_buy_agent (purchase) and findagent_edit_metadata (other metadata) by naming the exact operation and scope.

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?

It gives clear usage context: only the agent's owner can call it, price_type must be 'free' or 'paid', and price_cents is only needed when paid. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the ownership and scope constraints make appropriate usage clear.

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

All FindAgent tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a clearly scoped resource+action combination, and the versioning variants (bump_version vs repull vs reintrospect_mcp) are explicitly disambiguated by agent kind. Even with 52 tools, the descriptions make each purpose distinct enough to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow the findagent_<verb>_<object> snake_case pattern, and families share predictable verbs like list, create, delete, edit, and submit. Minor exceptions such as findagent_preflight, findagent_whoami, and findagent_earnings keep it from perfect consistency.

Tool Count2/5

At 52 tools, this far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for a coherent MCP surface. The count may reflect a broad platform, but as a single toolset it is heavy and likely to strain agent selection and context.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers publishing, versioning, knowledge bases, org management, GitHub import, purchases, and the demand board in impressive depth. However, there are notable dead ends: no unpublish/delete for a live agent, no request-fulfillment/linking action, and no org deletion or KB document update.

Resources

Need Help?