Skip to main content
Glama

Intelligence MCP

by co.goodmeta.intel

Scan Agent Payments Ecosystem

scan_opportunities
Read-only

Scan GitHub, Hacker News, and npm for new repos, packages, and discussions in the agent payments ecosystem (AP2, ACP, x402, MPP, UCP). Returns AI-classified and scored opportunities with recommended actions. Use when the user asks about recent activity, new developments, or opportunities in agent payments ('what's new in agent payments?', 'any new x402 repos?', 'scan for opportunities'). Use get_protocol_info instead for static protocol details, or compare_protocols for side-by-side comparison. Costs $0.01 USDC. Accepts: x402 (USDC on Base) or MPP (Tempo USDC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLook-back window in days (e.g., 7 for last week, 30 for last month). Default 7.
min_scoreNoMinimum opportunity score out of 20 (e.g., 12 for high-quality only, 8 for broader results). Default 12.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds critical context: cost ($0.01 USDC), accepted payment methods (x402, MPP), and that results are AI-classified with scores/actions. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences: purpose, usage cues, cost/payment. Front-loaded with key action, no redundant 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?

Despite no output schema, description covers return format (AI-classified/scored opportunities with recommendations), cost, payment methods, and data sources. All essential context for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters (days, min_score). Description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond defaults/cost implication; thus baseline 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 clearly states the tool scans GitHub, Hacker News, and npm for agent payments ecosystem developments, with specific verb ('Scan'), resources, and ecosystem scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings (get_protocol_info, compare_protocols) by focusing on dynamic scanning.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides when to use (user asks about recent activity/new developments in agent payments) with example queries, and when not to use (static info: get_protocol_info; comparison: compare_protocols). Excellent guidance.

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

All Intelligence MCP toolsInspect
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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct and non-overlapping purpose: compare_protocols for side-by-side comparison, get_protocol_info for in-depth single protocol details, and scan_opportunities for external scanning. Descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: compare_protocols, get_protocol_info, scan_opportunities. This pattern is predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is perfectly scoped for the focused domain of agent payment protocols. Each tool serves a distinct, essential function without redundancy or missing coverage.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers all core use cases for the domain: retrieving individual protocol info, comparing multiple protocols, and discovering new developments. There are no obvious gaps for a research-oriented server.

Resources