Skip to main content
Glama

YourAITools MCP Hub

ToolPick: Find the best paid API for a task

find_paid_api
Read-onlyIdempotent

Which paid API should my agent call? Searches the 36,000+ paid x402 resources on the public x402 discovery indexes and returns how many match your need, how many seller hosts there are, and the top 3 services ranked by relevance, 30-day unique payers and calls, recency and price (service name, USD price, networks, payers). Optional max_price and network filters. Free preview tier. The paid x402 routes add resource URLs and usage detail for the top 5 (/v1/lite), live 402 checks of the top candidates with a best verified pick (/v1/pick) and a market report with price quartiles and top sellers (/v1/market).

[ToolPick via YourAITools MCP Hub] Free tier: same as ToolPick's own MCP server (call without payment and without tier). Paid: lite $0.003 / pick $0.01 / market $0.02 per call, with a credits key (Authorization: Bearer yatc_...) or x402 (USDC; the hub returns the payment terms). Failed tool calls aren't charged: credits are refunded automatically and x402 payments only settle on success.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "need": "<need>"
    },
    "name": "find_paid_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needYesThe capability you need, in plain words, e.g. "solana token safety", "web search", "pdf to text", "hyperliquid funding rates" (2-200 chars)
tierNoPaid tier: lite $0.003, pick $0.01, market $0.02. Omit tier (with no credits key or x402 payment) to use the free tier.
limitNo(paid calls only) Rows per list, 1-25 (default 10)
networkNoOnly resources payable on this network (default any)
max_priceNoOnly resources priced at or below this many USD per call, e.g. 0.01
min_payersNo(paid calls only) Only resources with at least this many unique payers in the last 30 days (default 0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_price / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  0.01
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / need / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  "pdf to text"
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description still adds substantial context beyond them: the free preview tier, per-tier pricing, the auth mechanism (Bearer yatc_...), x402 USDC settlement, and the refund policy for failed calls. It also discloses the ranking signals used to order results.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The opening question plus the enumeration of return fields is well front-loaded and the tier behavior is described compactly. The second paragraph duplicates pricing details already present in the schema's tier description, which is mild redundancy rather than a structural flaw.

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?

With six parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so by describing counts, host counts, and the top-3 fields, plus per-tier additions. It stops short of describing result shape details like pagination or the exact list structure for paid tiers.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so the parameter documentation burden is already met, and the description goes further by explaining that max_price and network are optional filters and by spelling out what each tier's result set contains. The one gap is that 'limit' and 'min_payers' are not discussed in the prose.

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 uses a specific verb and resource — searching the paid x402 discovery indexes and returning match counts, seller host counts, and a ranked top 3. The 'paid x402' scope implicitly separates it from free-routing siblings like route_tools, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is by scope rather than by direct contrast.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the opening question 'Which paid API should my agent call?' and by the tier/pricing breakdown, which helps an agent pick a tier. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus route_tools or scan_tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources