payanagent

payanagent_requests

The 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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness3/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All payanagent tools Inspect

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

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?