Skip to main content
Glama

Kortex

by dev.rohnelt.kortex

Find a service that actually works

resolve
Read-only

Describe what you need in plain language and get back x402 services ranked by evidence: how much of the time they have been up, whether they answer with a valid 402, and how many distinct wallets have actually paid them on-chain. One entry per operator, not per URL.

When to use: Call this before paying a service you have not used, and instead of taking the first result from a directory. Of the services listed as x402 today, measured across 1,015 of them, only 25% actually answer with a payment requirement — the rest are up but sell nothing.

Price: US$0.005000 per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needYesWhat you want done, in plain language. Example: scrape a web page and return clean text.
limitNoHow many candidates to return.
require_paidNoOnly return services with at least one on-chain settlement. Turn off to see untested ones too.
max_price_usdNoSkip anything that quotes more than this per call.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations mark this as read-only, and the description adds meaningful context: ranking criteria, per-operator deduplication, real-world reliability statistics, and a per-call price. It does not describe output shape, pagination, or error behavior, but for a read-only discovery tool the added transparency is solid. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short paragraphs with a front-loaded first sentence. The 'when to use' note and price are useful, and the market statistic is persuasive context rather than filler. It is appropriately concise, though the statistic sentence could be trimmed without losing core meaning.

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 four-parameter, read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main agent needs: what the tool does, why to use it, how results are ranked, deduplication, and cost. It does not specify the exact return structure, but the detailed criteria in the description largely compensate.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the plain-language nature of 'need' and the evidence ranking, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool converts a plain-language need into ranked x402 service candidates and names concrete evidence signals (uptime, valid 402, on-chain payments). It is specific and not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like check or compare.

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?

There is an explicit 'When to use' section: call before paying for an unverified service and instead of trusting the first directory result. This gives clear context, but it does not mention when not to use the tool or point to alternative sibling tools.

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

All Kortex 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct action: check evaluates a single URL, compare scores multiple URLs, resolve discovers services by description, history provides evidence, and watch tracks changes. Account tools (identity_create, credit_deposit, whoami) and capabilities/report are equally unambiguous. No two tools could plausibly be confused.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and informative, but conventions are mixed: check, compare, report, resolve, and watch are single-word imperatives; capabilities, history, and whoami are nouns or phrases; and credit_deposit and identity_create reverse the usual verb_noun order. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, though the names remain fairly intuitive.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a reputation/verification service: discovery, checking, comparison, history, watch, reporting, identity, credit, and account introspection. Each tool earns its place and the count fits squarely in the ideal range for a focused server.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is well covered: discover, check, compare, track, report, and manage identity/credit. The only notable gaps are watch management (no list or unwatch tool) and account deletion/cleanup, but agents can work around these by simply stopping use. Overall, the surface is nearly complete for its stated purpose.

Resources