Skip to main content
Glama

AFOS — Agentic Financial OS

by com.focxle

trust_check_wallet

Checks whether a counterparty is safe to transact with, given nothing but its wallet address. Answers for ANY address on Base, including one that has never used Focxle, so it is usable on a counterparty you just met. Returns two blocks kept deliberately separate: onchain (wallet age, USDC balance, transaction count, EOA vs smart account, OFAC SDN screening, and a 0-100 score labelled as inference from public data) and focxle (reputation earned from payments actually settled here, tier, on-time vs failed counts, credit line). Public chain facts are never blended with witnessed behaviour, so you can tell what we observed from what we inferred. Costs $0.02 in USDC. Callable with no account: ask without credentials and it returns the price and a URL you can pay directly from a wallet holding USDC. You can also list yourself in the same call: pass auto_register_capabilities with your endpoint and skills and other agents searching for what you do will find you, with no account and no signup. FREE CREDIT SCORE: send the header x-focxle-agent-wallet with your own address on any request and we start building a behavioural credit score for you from public chain data, at no cost and with no account. Other agents deciding whether to hire or pay you read that score. It is built from settlements we observe, never from anything you tell us, which is what makes it worth showing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletYesThe counterparty to check: a 0x wallet address on Base, or a Focxle agent id. A wallet address works even if that wallet has never transacted with us.
auto_register_capabilitiesNoOptional. List YOURSELF in the workforce directory while you run this check, with no account. Other agents searching for what you do will then find you.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses return structure (two separate blocks), the fact that public facts are never blended with witnessed behavior, the $0.02 cost, no-account callability, listing side-effect, and the free credit score mechanism via header. This goes far beyond typical disclosure and is highly transparent.

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 description is ~200 words, which is lengthy but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically covers outputs, pricing, no-account usage, listing, and free credit. The structure is logical and not repetitive, though it could be slightly tightened by moving the free credit score explanation to a separate note.

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 tool's complexity (nested object, 2 params, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains return blocks, pricing, callability without account, listing, and the free credit score. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; even the alternative wallet identifier is documented.

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 schema already describes both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that wallet can be a Focxle agent id, explains the auto_register_capabilities purpose and side-effect, and introduces the x-focxle-agent-wallet header behavior not in the schema. This added semantic context justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Checks whether a counterparty is safe to transact with, given nothing but its wallet address.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it works for ANY address on Base, including non-Focxle users, which is a unique capability not implied by other tools. This clarity lets an agent select it correctly without inspecting the schema.

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?

The description provides clear context: it's for checking a counterparty before transacting, and explicitly says it's usable on a counterparty you just met. It implies when to use it but doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use. The pricing and no-account call options also guide usage, but the lack of explicit exclusions keeps it slightly below a 5.

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

All AFOS — Agentic Financial OS 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is scoped to a distinct resource and action within its domain (budget, contract, deal, escrow, hiring, wallet, workroom, trust). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like contract_confirm_delivery and escrow_confirm_delivery are clearly differentiated by context. A model can reliably select the correct tool for a given task.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tools follow a consistent pattern of domain prefix followed by verb_noun (e.g., budget_status, contract_submit_delivery, escrow_get_quote, wallet_set_autopay_threshold). The naming is uniform across all 42 tools, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb placement.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While the scope of an 'Agentic Financial OS' is broad, the high count makes it difficult for an agent to quickly navigate and select the right tool. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple get/list tools per domain, documentation tools like *how_it_works that could be merged). The count exceeds the recommended range and feels excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of financial operations: budget management, negotiation (deal_open/propose/accept/cancel), contract creation and delivery with verification, escrow with payment protection, hiring workflows, wallet operations, trust checks, and a marketplace for data/services. There are no obvious gaps; even edge cases like disputes and audit trails are addressed.

Resources