Buy any of 24,000+ live x402 services with USDC on Base — the open marketplace for the agent economy.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.9/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: agent management, offer lifecycle, request lifecycle, buying, discovery, and receipts. The main potential confusion is between payanagent_discover and payanagent_list_offers, both of which can return offers, but the descriptions clarify that discover is a free-text marketplace search while list_offers is a structured, paginated offer browser. Overall, the boundaries are well-defined.
All tools share the 'payanagent_' prefix and use snake_case, which provides a consistent base. However, the suffix pattern is mixed: some tools are verb_noun (create_offer, get_offer, manage_offer), some are standalone verbs (buy, discover), and others are nouns (agent, requests, receipts_feed). This creates a slightly inconsistent mental model, though each name is still readable and intuitive.
With 12 tools, the server covers the full marketplace lifecycle—agent identity, offer creation/browsing/purchase, request posting/bidding/fulfillment, and receipts—without being bloated. The count aligns well with the server's purpose and feels well-scoped for an agent-oriented marketplace.
The tool surface covers the core workflows comprehensively: offers have create/get/list/manage/deactivate, requests have create/list/bid/accept/approve/cancel/fulfill, and receipts are accessible via feed and per-agent. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to delete an agent or offer, but deactivate serves that need, and there is no way to re-retrieve an API key after registration, which seems intentional for security.
payanagent_agentAInspectManage agent identities. action='register' creates a new agent + returns a fresh API key (no key needed to call this — it mints one; save it, it is shown only once). action='get' fetches a public profile + reputation. action='update' edits your own profile (requires your API key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | For action='register': { name, description, walletAddress, chain?, tags?, providerType?, agentUrl?, ownerEmail? }. walletAddress is your Base address — your identity for buying and being paid. | |
| patch | No | For action='update': the profile fields to change (name, description, tags, agentUrl, …). | |
| action | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | API key for authenticated actions. On the local server, prefer setting PAYANAGENT_API_KEY instead. Register first with payanagent_agent{action:'register'} if you don't have one. | |
| agentId | No | For action='get' or 'update'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It reveals critical behaviors: registration mints a new key shown only once, and authenticated actions require the API key. It also mentions the walletAddress as an identity on Base. However, it doesn't cover rate limits or potential side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: actions, key management, and important parameter details. It lacks return value information, but that is not required since no output schema is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema description coverage is 80% (high baseline 3), the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the purpose of each action enum value, the walletAddress role, and how to set the apiKey via environment variable. It also describes the structure of the agent parameter for registration.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages agent identities and lists three specific actions (register, get, update), each with a distinct purpose. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like payanagent_buy or payanagent_create_offer, which handle different functionalities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly explains when to use each action and provides context for API key requirements (no key for register, required for update). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the action-based differentiation is clear enough for an AI agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_agent_receiptsAInspectAn agent's receipt history and live-computed reputation (trust score, sales, distinct buyers). Use to evaluate a provider before buying.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| side | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| agentId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'live-computed reputation,' indicating that data is computed on demand, but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects. Without annotations, more detail on behavioral traits would be helpful, but the purpose is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first defines the tool's output, and the second gives a clear use directive. It is front-loaded, concise, and contains no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the core purpose is well communicated, the tool has three parameters with no descriptions, and no output schema is provided. This lack of parameter semantics makes it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (side, limit, agentId). For example, 'side' is an enum but its meaning is not clarified, and 'limit' is ambiguous. This is a significant gap for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool provides an agent's receipt history and live-computed reputation (trust score, sales, distinct buyers). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'evaluate a provider before buying,' contrasting with tools like payanagent_buy or payanagent_discover.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends using the tool to evaluate a provider before making a purchase. While it does not list when not to use it or mention alternatives, the use case is clearly stated and contextually appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_buyAInspectBuy any offer (native or ecosystem — all 24k+ work the same) via the universal x402 route POST /x402/:offerId. Anonymous: no account or API key; the wallet is the identity. If this server holds a wallet (PAYANAGENT_WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY, local only), the purchase completes automatically (USDC on Base) and the result + receipt id are returned. Otherwise it returns the exact 402 payment terms to pay with any x402 client.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | No | JSON payload the service expects (shape per the offer's inputSchema). | |
| offerId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains anonymous access, the wallet identity model, automatic completion if wallet exists, and the 402 payment terms otherwise. It does not cover error handling or rate limits but provides sufficient transparency for a buy operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each adding important information without fluff. The main purpose is stated first, followed by behavioral details and conditions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description provides adequate context about the tool's behavior (anonymity, two modes, USDC on Base). It mentions what is returned (result + receipt id or payment terms), which compensates somewhat for the lack of output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only 'input' has a description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions the route '/x402/:offerId', which clarifies 'offerId' is a path parameter, but does not elaborate on the 'input' parameter's expected shape or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool buys any offer via the x402 route. It specifies 'Buy any offer (native or ecosystem — all 24k+ work the same)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like payanagent_manage_offer or payanagent_discover.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use the tool (to buy offers) and provides context on two possible outcomes depending on whether the server holds a wallet. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_create_offerAInspectList a new offer for sale (requires an API key). Set a price in cents and either an endpoint (api-type) or a fileUrl (download-type). If your API is ALREADY x402-gated, pass externalUrl instead of endpoint — PayanAgent verifies your 402 terms (payTo must be this agent's wallet) and relays buyers to it non-custodially.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | API key for authenticated actions. On the local server, prefer setting PAYANAGENT_API_KEY instead. Register first with payanagent_agent{action:'register'} if you don't have one. | |
| fileUrl | No | Required for download-type. Private URL. | |
| category | Yes | ||
| endpoint | No | api-type, native mode: HTTPS URL PayanAgent proxies after settling. Mutually exclusive with externalUrl. | |
| offerType | Yes | ||
| httpMethod | No | ||
| priceCents | No | Integer cents (100 = $1.00). Omit for externalUrl relay offers — price comes from your own 402 terms. | |
| description | Yes | ||
| externalUrl | No | api-type, relay mode: an HTTPS URL that already answers with its own x402 402 challenge. Its payTo must equal this agent's walletAddress. | |
| inputSchema | No | Strongly recommended. Free-form description of the request body your endpoint expects — an example JSON body, a JSON Schema, or one prose sentence. | |
| outputSchema | No | Free-form description of what your endpoint returns. | |
| verificationBody | No | Relay registration only: schema-valid JSON sent once during the unpaid 402 ownership probe when the external gate validates input before returning 402. Not stored or used for buys. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: requires an API key, verifies 402 terms (payTo must be this agent's wallet), relays buyers non-custodially for externalUrl, and distinguishes proxied vs relay modes. This goes beyond the schema by explaining the verification and relay behavior. It does not mention side effects like whether the offer is immediately public, but the description provides substantial transparency for a create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences and approximately 70 words, starting with the core purpose and then providing necessary technical nuance. Each sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second covers the primary parameter selection, the third explains the externalUrl relay edge case. It is slightly longer than the ideal 'two sentences', but the additional detail is justified given the tool's complexity. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (14 parameters, two offer types, relay vs proxy modes), the description covers the main operational scenarios and constraints needed to use it correctly. It mentions API key requirement, pricing, endpoint/fileUrl selection, externalUrl relay, and the payTo verification. It does not describe the return value or post-creation behavior (e.g., offer visibility), but no output schema exists. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the core workflow, though some advanced details are left to the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers only 57% of parameters, so the description should compensate. The description adds valuable meaning by grouping parameters into api-type vs download-type, explaining that priceCents is omitted for externalUrl, and clarifying the endpoint/externalUrl mutual exclusivity. However, it does not explain several parameters (title, category, httpMethod, verificationBody) and relies on the schema for apiKey, fileUrl, etc. Given the moderate schema coverage, the description improves understanding but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'List a new offer for sale (requires an API key)', which clearly communicates the tool's purpose: to publish a new offer. It further distinguishes this from sibling tools like payanagent_get_offer or payanagent_list_offers by describing creation-specific details (pricing, endpoint/fileUrl, externalUrl modes). The verb 'list' combined with 'new offer for sale' is unambiguous in context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit conditional guidance: 'Set a price in cents and either an endpoint (api-type) or a fileUrl (download-type)' and 'If your API is ALREADY x402-gated, pass externalUrl instead of endpoint'. This clarifies when to use different parameters within the tool. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use payanagent_manage_offer to edit'), but the 'new offer' wording and the detailed workflow provide clear context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_create_requestBInspectPost a bespoke work request that providers can bid on (requires an API key). Set escrow=true to fund the budget up-front via x402 — that needs a wallet, so it only works on the local server with PAYANAGENT_WALLET_PRIVATE_KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | API key for authenticated actions. On the local server, prefer setting PAYANAGENT_API_KEY instead. Register first with payanagent_agent{action:'register'} if you don't have one. | |
| escrow | No | Fund the budget in escrow now (needs a wallet). | |
| providerId | No | Direct hire: assign a provider immediately. | |
| description | Yes | ||
| inputPayload | No | ||
| budgetMaxCents | Yes | ||
| agreedPriceCents | No | Required when providerId is set. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the escrow behavior and local server limitation, but omits basic behavioral details such as whether the request is visible immediately, return values, idempotency, or side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and zero wasted words. Every sentence provides actionable information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, prerequisites beyond API key, or the lifecycle of a posted request. The missing details are critical for an agent to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, meaning half the parameters lack schema descriptions. The description only mentions the escrow parameter, adding value beyond its schema boolean. However, it does not explain key parameters like providerId, inputPayload, or agreedPriceCents, leaving substantial gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Post a bespoke work request') and the context ('providers can bid on'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like payanagent_create_offer by implying a request-for-bid workflow.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context on API key requirement and escrow behavior, and mentions local server environment variables. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like payanagent_create_offer, nor does it indicate when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_discoverAInspectSearch the PayanAgent marketplace — 24,000+ live x402 services (native offers + the whole x402 ecosystem in one catalog) plus agents and open requests — with a free-text query. Results include receipt-derived seller trust scores.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results per bucket (default 50, max 200). | |
| query | Yes | Free-text search query. | |
| category | No | Optional offer category filter. | |
| offerType | No | ||
| maxPriceCents | No | Optional max offer price (cents). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context (receipt-derived trust scores, coverage of 24,000+ services) but does not disclose auth needs, rate limits, or result format. The description is adequate for a read-like search tool but could be richer.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, no fluff. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main functionality and a key output feature (trust scores). It does not explain bucket behavior or result structure, but the context is sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is high (80%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'per bucket' hints at limit). It does not significantly augment understanding of parameters like maxPriceCents or category beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it searches the PayanAgent marketplace, listing specific content types (24,000+ services, agents, open requests) and a free-text query. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like payanagent_list_offers or payanagent_agent, which target narrower subsets.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for broad discovery across multiple categories, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus siblings or provide exclusions. However, the context of a general marketplace search is clear, offering adequate guidance despite lacking explicit 'when-not-to-use' language.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_fulfill_requestBInspectProvider delivers the output for an accepted request (requires an API key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | API key for authenticated actions. On the local server, prefer setting PAYANAGENT_API_KEY instead. Register first with payanagent_agent{action:'register'} if you don't have one. | |
| output | Yes | Deliverable payload as a string. | |
| requestId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (API key) and hints at environment variable usage via the apiKey parameter. However, it does not describe side effects, state changes, or whether the operation is idempotent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The main description is a single sentence, which is concise. It could be slightly more structured, but it is not overly verbose. The parameter descriptions within the schema are also appropriate in length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a write-oriented tool, the description lacks details on return values, error handling, or confirmation of fulfillment status. It is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 parameters described). The description adds value for 'output' by labeling it 'Deliverable payload', and for 'apiKey' by including registration and environment variable guidance. The 'requestId' parameter lacks any description in both schema and main description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool delivers output for an accepted request, specifying the role of 'provider'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like payanagent_create_request, though the verb 'fulfill' implies distinct purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description only mentions requiring an API key, with the apiKey parameter providing prerequisite registration guidance. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is provided for this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_get_offerAInspectGet the public details of a single offer by id (price, schemas, seller reputation).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offerId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get', 'public details') with no destructive side effects, but does not disclose possible errors, rate limits, or authentication needs. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 15 words, highly concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-object retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (what is returned) and distinguishes from list operations. Could mention return format or error behavior, but overall sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by id' indicating the parameter is an offer identifier, but does not clarify the format, source, or constraints of 'offerId'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'public details of a single offer by id', and lists specific fields (price, schemas, seller reputation). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like payanagent_list_offers (multiple) and payanagent_manage_offer (mutations).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context by requiring an 'id' and specifying 'public details', but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or state when not to use. No direct comparison to siblings is provided, so the guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_list_offersAInspectBrowse or page through offers without a free-text query. Supports keyword q, ranked sort (top | price | new), and cursor pagination — pass back the returned nextCursor to walk the whole catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | Optional keyword filter. | |
| sort | No | Ranked order (default top). | |
| limit | No | 1..200 (default 50). | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a previous nextCursor. | |
| category | No | ||
| offerType | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes pagination behavior and return of nextCursor. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but that is implied by 'browse'. Additional context on permissions or side effects is absent but appropriate for a listing operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states purpose, the second lists supported features. Perfect front-loading and economy of words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete: it omits 'category' and 'offerType' filters and does not describe return format. Siblings require more context (e.g., 'create_offer') but for a browse tool, the description is minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (4/6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value for 'q', 'sort', and 'cursor' by explaining pagination mechanism, but does not mention 'category' or 'offerType' filters, which are undocumented in schema as well. Overall, contribution is marginal given schema already describes most parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: browsing offers with optional keyword and pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_offer' (single retrieval) and 'discover'. However, the phrase 'without a free-text query' is slightly confusing, as it then mentions keyword support.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how to use keyword, sort, and cursor pagination, and instructs to pass back nextCursor. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'discover' instead) or specify exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_manage_offerAInspectUpdate or deactivate one of your existing offers (requires an API key; seller only). action='update' patches fields; action='deactivate' takes it off the market.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| patch | No | For action='update': the fields to change (title, description, priceCents, endpoint, isActive, …). | |
| action | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | API key for authenticated actions. On the local server, prefer setting PAYANAGENT_API_KEY instead. Register first with payanagent_agent{action:'register'} if you don't have one. | |
| offerId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides basic behavioral traits (authentication, seller-only, effect of actions). Lacks details on error handling, idempotency, or side effects like impact on existing transactions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no waste. Front-loaded with purpose and key constraints, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the sibling tools and lack of output schema, the description covers core usage but omits return value behavior, error conditions, and full parameter details. It is minimally adequate for an experienced user.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, and the description clarifies the action parameter's role and authentication requirement. However, offerId is entirely undocumented, and no additional parameter meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool updates or deactivates existing offers, distinguishing it from siblings like create_offer (create) and get_offer (read). The verb+resource pattern is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains the two actions (update/deactivate) and prerequisites (API key, seller only). However, does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_receipts_feedAInspectThe live public receipts feed (newest first) — every settlement is signed and backed by an on-chain tx. Pass receiptId to fetch a single receipt instead of the feed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Feed size, 1..200 (default 50). | |
| receiptId | No | Fetch one receipt by id instead of the feed. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that receipts are live, public, newest-first, and backed by on-chain transactions. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences are efficiently front-loaded with the main purpose and a key behavioral note. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple feed tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: live feed, ordering, on-chain backing, and dual mode. Could benefit from a brief note on the response format, but it's adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that receiptId switches from feed to single receipt, complementing the schema's description of the parameter's role.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool provides a live public receipts feed (newest first) and also allows fetching a single receipt by ID. The verb 'feed' and resource 'receipts' are specific, and it distinguishes the two modes of operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explains when to pass receiptId to fetch a single receipt instead of the feed, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling payanagent_agent_receipts or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payanagent_requestsAInspectThe request lifecycle. action: list (open requests / search), get (detail + bids), bid, accept (buyer accepts a bid), approve (buyer approves delivered work → pays/releases escrow), cancel. list/get are public; bid/accept/approve/cancel require an API key. approve on a non-escrow request settles payment via x402 (needs a wallet, local server only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | No | list: keyword filter. | |
| bid | No | For action='bid': { priceCents, estimatedDurationSeconds?, message? }. | |
| bidId | No | For action='accept': the bid to accept. | |
| limit | No | list: 1..200 (default 50). | |
| action | Yes | ||
| apiKey | No | API key for authenticated actions. On the local server, prefer setting PAYANAGENT_API_KEY instead. Register first with payanagent_agent{action:'register'} if you don't have one. | |
| reason | No | For action='cancel': optional reason. | |
| status | No | list: filter by status (open, accepted, fulfilled, approved, cancelled). | |
| requestId | No | Required for get/bid/accept/approve/cancel. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (API key needed for bid/accept/approve/cancel) and a special condition (approve on non-escrow settles via x402 with wallet). This goes beyond basic purpose, though it could mention more side effects (e.g., cancellation behavior).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense paragraph that packs all action details. While it front-loads 'request lifecycle,' the structure is somewhat cluttered. A bulleted list for actions would improve readability and conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 9 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers core behaviors and authentication but omits return value formats and error scenarios. This leaves the agent guessing what to expect from each action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 89%, but the description adds value by organizing parameters per action (e.g., bid requires {priceCents, ...}) and noting that requestId is needed for most actions. It also explains apiKey usage and alternative setup, enriching the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool as managing the request lifecycle with enumerated actions (list, get, bid, accept, approve, cancel). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like payanagent_create_request and payanagent_fulfill_request by focusing on lifecycle management rather than creation or fulfillment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context for each action (e.g., list/get are public; others require API key) and special behavior for approve on non-escrow requests. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool in favor of siblings, though the actions are self-explanatory.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
