Agent Paywire library

List verified agents and bots

list_bots

Read-onlyIdempotent

List every verified public agent or bot that pays, gets paid, or connects a wallet, with maker, protocols, license status, url, verified_at and funds_or_keys (true when the software can access a wallet or keys). Inclusion needs a public repo or demo, a known maker, and a push in the 12 months before verification. Use this to find or vet such software; use search_library for papers and docs about agents, and protocol_facts for how a payment protocol works. Use get_bot with an entries[].id value for one record. changes_since lists recent edits as kind bot; remove the bot: prefix before calling get_bot. Listed, not endorsed, not investment advice. Free, no auth.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`entries`	Yes
`disclaimer`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "disclaimer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "entries": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "funds_or_keys": {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "maker": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "url": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "id",
+          "name",
+          "maker",
+          "funds_or_keys",
+          "url"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "count",
+    "disclaimer",
+    "entries"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's added value is the inclusion policy (public repo or demo, known maker, push within 12 months), the 'Free, no auth' access note, and the 'listed, not endorsed, not investment advice' caveat. It does not mention rate limits or result-set size, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 core purpose and inclusion rule are front-loaded, and every sentence does work (fields, criteria, sibling routing, disclaimer). It is dense and slightly over-packed for one paragraph, with the disclaimer and changes_since aside appended after the routing guidance, but nothing is truly redundant.

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?

With zero parameters, a 100%-covered schema, an existing output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: what qualifies for listing, what each record contains, which sibling to use instead, and how to fetch one record. Nothing material is missing.

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?

The tool takes no input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline is 4. The description instead documents the shape of each returned entry (maker, protocols, license status, url, verified_at, funds_or_keys), which aids interpretation even though the output schema exists.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (list verified public agents/bots) and immediately scopes what 'verified' means by naming the returned fields and the inclusion criteria. It is clearly distinguishable from every sibling (search_library, protocol_facts, get_bot) without opening a schema.

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 says when to use it ('find or vet such software') and names the alternatives with their selecting conditions: search_library for papers/docs about agents, protocol_facts for how a payment protocol works, get_bot with an entries[].id for a single record. Even the changes_since/bot: prefix handoff is documented.

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

All Agent Paywire library 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?