Skip to main content
Glama

ghost-x402-market-intel-vet-schema

by dev.workers.ghost-agent-os.ghost-identity
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ghost_web_search

Search the web and get the results, in ONE payment. Ghost runs the search on its own provider account and returns the actual results — organic hits with title, url and snippet, plus answer box, knowledge panel, related questions — normalised into one shape. Three things most paid search tools do not do: it runs on more than one search provider and fails over between them, so a dead upstream costs you a retry rather than an answer; it never charges you for a search that did not come back, returning the fee as credit instead; and every answer carries a DSSE-signed receipt naming the provider that actually served it, over your question and the results, so what your agent retrieved can be proven later. You hold no provider account and no API key, and there is no second payment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesWhat to search the web for.
countryNoCountry code for localisation, e.g. 'us', 'de'.
resultsNoHow many organic results to return.
languageNoInterface language, e.g. 'en', 'es'.
payment_signatureNox402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header value. Omit it to receive the payment terms; call again with it to run the tool.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / description
      Previous value: -"What a buyer asks Verified Web Search for. One field is required: the query.\n\nThe provider-selection knobs this carried before (min_payers, max_price_usd,\nnetwork) described a pick the buyer then had to pay for separately. On the merchant\npath Ghost makes that choice itself and eats the upstream cost, so the buyer's only\ninputs are about the search."New value: +"A Verified Web Search request. Only `query` is required; `results`, `country`\nand `language` shape the search. One payment covers the whole call."
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does it unusually well: multi-provider execution with failover, refund-as-credit when a search fails to return, a DSSE-signed receipt naming the serving provider, and the fact that no provider account or API key is needed. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent could not get from structured fields.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the failover/refund/receipt points are genuinely informative, but the 'Three things most paid search tools do not do' framing and the repeated payment reassurances are marketing padding that inflate the length without adding callable detail.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the normalized shape, plus the payment lifecycle. It stops short of latency, result-cap behaviour, or error modes beyond the refund promise, which keeps it from a 5.

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 query, country, language, results and payment_signature are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format or edge-case detail (e.g. result caps, country code expectations) beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search the web and get the results') and enumerates the returned artifacts (organic hits with title/url/snippet, answer box, knowledge panel, related questions). It is clearly a web-search tool, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling ghost_commerce_search, leaving that distinction to inference from the name.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'in ONE payment', 'no second payment', and the payment_signature semantics convey the two-step pay-then-run flow, but the description never states when to pick this tool over ghost_commerce_search or the other siblings, nor any prerequisites beyond the payment.

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

All ghost-x402-market-intel-vet-schema 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