Teardrop

Delegate To Agent

delegate_to_agent

Delegate a task to a remote A2A-compliant agent. Discovers the agent's capabilities via its agent card, sends it a message, and returns the result. Use when a task requires specialist capabilities beyond your own tools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_url`	Yes	Base URL of the remote A2A agent (e.g. https://agent.example.com)
`task_type`	No	Broad task class for routing telemetry; never include user data or task text.	general
`task_description`	Yes	Natural language description of the task to delegate

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Error message, if any
`result`	Yes	Text result extracted from the remote agent's response
`status`	Yes	A2A task state: completed, failed, etc.
`cost_usdc`	No	Cost of this delegation in atomic USDC
`agent_name`	Yes	Name of the remote agent (from its agent card)

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already communicate mutability (readOnlyHint=false), external interaction (openWorldHint=true), and non-idempotency. The description adds valuable behavior details: it discovers capabilities via an agent card, sends a message, and returns the result. It does not cover error scenarios or authentication, but the annotation baseline lowers the burden.

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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. Every clause contributes meaning—mechanism, result, and usage context—without any filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, mechanism, when to use, and what to expect. It could mention privacy or side-effect concerns but those are hinted by idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so it remains sufficiently complete.

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 schema provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so they are already well-documented. The tool description does not add extra parameter context beyond what the schema states, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'delegate' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a remote A2A-compliant agent'. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explaining it offloads to specialist capabilities beyond one's own tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a task requires specialist capabilities beyond your own tools.' This implies when not to use it (for tasks within one's own toolset) and differentiates from the many local tools listed as siblings.

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

All Teardrop 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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct blockchain/DeFi resources and actions. A few pairs like get_lending_rates vs get_yield_rates and get_defi_positions vs get_liquidation_risk have overlapping boundaries, but detailed descriptions and explicit redundancy notes (e.g., get_eth_balance vs get_wallet_portfolio) reduce confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_block, convert_currency, decode_transaction). The only minor deviations are noun-first names like http_fetch and web_search, but the style is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 27 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' and feels heavy. While the breadth of DeFi and crypto features justifies some size, the number is unwieldy for an agent to scan efficiently and could be consolidated (e.g., merging balance-related tools).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of blockchain data: balances, prices, TVL, yields, DEX quotes, gas, block/transaction details, approvals, and DeFi positions. Gaps include lack of wallet transaction history and NFT support, but these are beyond the server's clear focus on read-only DeFi analytics.

Resources

Need Help?