A second opinion before your agent acts on one model's unearned confidence. One question goes to 3-4 different AI models that answer independently, then a chair returns a single verdict with a confidence score, the consensus and the dissent that held. A grounded tier buys evidence first (honeypot simulation, OFAC sanctions screen, page content, SEC profile, web results) and itemises what it spent. Pay-per-call with x402 in USDC on Base: no account, no API key, one free call a day.
The last two health checks of this connector failed. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a distinct purpose and the descriptions clearly indicate when to use which: council for basic judgement calls, council_deep for high-stakes or low-confidence results, and council_grounded for fact-based questions requiring evidence. The escalation path and grounding requirement make selection unambiguous.
All three names share the 'council' prefix with consistent snake_case suffixes (_deep, _grounded) indicating variants. The pattern is predictable and easy to parse.
Three tools perfectly scope the server's purpose: a base council, a more rigorous version, and a fact-grounded version. No tool feels redundant or missing for the core offering.
The surface covers basic, deep, and grounded deliberation well, but there is no tool that combines deep cross-examination with evidence grounding. An agent needing both higher rigor and factual verification must choose one or run sequential calls, which is a minor gap.
Put one question to 3 DIFFERENT AI models and get a single verdict back with confidence, the points they all agreed on, the dissent, and what would change the answer. For judgement calls where one model's opinion is not enough: is this safe, is it worth it, which option. $0.01 USDC per call.
Inputs: q (required), x_payment, free_trial.
The same panel with 4 models and two rounds: each seat sees the others and revises, so the verdict survived cross-examination. Use it when being wrong is expensive, or after a council call came back with low confidence or real dissent. $0.03 USDC.
Inputs: q (required), x_payment, free_trial.
Buys the FACTS first, then deliberates. Your question is scanned for a contract address, URL or $TICKER; the matching evidence is purchased (honeypot and owner-powers simulation, OFAC sanctions screen, the actual page content, SEC profile), then judged by one analyst on what came back. Needs a contract address, URL or $TICKER in the question: with nothing to check it returns 503 and charges nothing. The response lists every source and what was spent for you. Priced per question, $0.05 to $0.12: an unpaid call returns the itemised quote for free.
Inputs: q (required), x_payment, free_trial.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.