Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Vextorium

by com.vextorium.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

call_service

Run any Vextorium service with its parameters and get the JSON result. Paid per call in USDC via x402 (price shown by service_details); invalid input, or a failed upstream source with no current data held, is not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "service": "<service>"
    },
    "name": "call_service"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNoJSON input of the service (see service_details)
serviceYesService id, e.g. 'iban-validate'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / params / additionalProperties / description
      Added value: +"Service-specific parameter value; use service_details to see the exact fields, types, and descriptions."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / params / propertyNames
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / service / description
      Previous value: -"Service id, e.g. 'gas-price'"New value: +"Service id, e.g. 'iban-validate'"
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real value by disclosing the USDC/x402 payment model, where the price is found, and precisely which failure conditions are not charged. It omits wallet/auth prerequisites for paying and says nothing about latency or rate limits, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, both dense and front-loaded: the action comes first and the billing caveat second. Every clause earns its place, including the not-charged exceptions, which preempt a common agent concern.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter dispatcher with a nested free-form params object and no output schema, the definition covers cost model, failure handling, and where to look up parameter shapes. The remaining gap is the absence of any mention of how a service id is discovered or how payment is authorized, though the sibling service_details partially covers this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the service id and the free-form params bag are already documented, mandating a baseline of 3. The description reinforces that params are service-specific and must be read from service_details, but adds no new syntax, required-field, or validation detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Run any Vextorium service with its parameters and get the JSON result" gives a specific verb (run) and resource (Vextorium service) and makes clear this is a generic dispatcher rather than a single-purpose tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with search_services or service_details, but the deferral to service_details for parameters and price implicitly positions it as the execution step after discovery.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the workflow (consult service_details for the service id, parameter shape, and price) but never states when to use this tool versus search_services or service_details directly. The billing-exception clause is useful context, yet there is no explicit prerequisite such as 'the service id must first be obtained from search_services'.

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

All Vextorium toolsInspect
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