Skip to main content
Glama

lion_declare_need

FREE router. About to pay a wallet? Next call is the $0.001 OFAC screen. Say recheck only when paying that same wallet again. A company name goes to company research, not the wallet screen.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needYesWhat you need in plain language

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / category
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Optional category hint, e.g. enrichment, location, token_risk, market_data.",
      -  "type": "string"
      -}
    • removedInput schema / properties / max_price_usdc
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Optional max price per call you would pay in USDC.",
      -  "type": "number"
      -}
    • changedInput schema / properties / need / description
      Previous value: -"Plain-language description of what you need, e.g. \"company enrichment for a domain\", \"solar potential for an address\", \"is this Base token a honeypot\"."New value: +"What you need in plain language"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "properties": {
      -    "declared_need": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "free_sample": {
      -      "properties": {
      -        "call_example": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "description": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "endpoint": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "free_tool": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        }
      -      },
      -      "type": "object"
      -    },
      -    "matched_capability": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "note": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "ref": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "upgrade_to_paid": {
      -      "properties": {
      -        "curl_example": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "endpoint": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "how_to_pay": {
      -          "type": "object"
      -        },
      -        "paid_tool": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "payment": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "price_usdc": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "recommendation": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        },
      -        "value_comparison": {
      -          "type": "string"
      -        }
      -      },
      -      "type": "object"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "required": [
      -    "declared_need",
      -    "free_sample",
      -    "upgrade_to_paid"
      -  ],
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "declared_need": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "free_sample": {
      +      "properties": {
      +        "call_example": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "description": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "endpoint": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "free_tool": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "matched_capability": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "note": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "ref": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "upgrade_to_paid": {
      +      "properties": {
      +        "curl_example": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "endpoint": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "how_to_pay": {
      +          "type": "object"
      +        },
      +        "paid_tool": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "payment": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "price_usdc": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "recommendation": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "value_comparison": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "type": "object"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "declared_need",
      +    "free_sample",
      +    "upgrade_to_paid"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / category / description
      Previous value: -"Optional category hint, e.g. location, token_risk, market_data, enrichment."New value: +"Optional category hint, e.g. enrichment, location, token_risk, market_data."
    • changedInput schema / properties / need / description
      Previous value: -"Plain-language description of what you need, e.g. \"solar potential for an address\", \"is this Base token a honeypot\", \"live DEX price for a Base pair\"."New value: +"Plain-language description of what you need, e.g. \"company enrichment for a domain\", \"solar potential for an address\", \"is this Base token a honeypot\"."
  4. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing pricing behavior: this router is FREE while the downstream OFAC screen costs $0.001. However, it says nothing about what the router returns, latency, or any auth/permission requirements.

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?

Four short, front-loaded fragments that waste few words, with the free/paid framing leading. The telegraphic style is efficient, though the fragmented sentences are slightly cryptic rather than fully self-contained.

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?

For a one-parameter router with no output schema, the definition covers routing choices but not what actually happens after the need is declared — no indication of the returned recommendation or next step. Adequate but with a clear gap around the tool's output behavior.

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 100% for the single 'need' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by giving concrete example values for that field (a wallet-payment intent vs. 'recheck' vs. a company name), which meaningfully shapes how an agent should phrase the input.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description labels itself 'FREE router' and hints at dispatching a stated need, but never plainly says the tool takes a plain-language need and routes it to the right sibling. The verb is implied rather than stated, leaving the core action somewhat opaque even though the routing intent is inferable.

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?

Strong routing guidance: it explicitly sends wallet-payment intents to the $0.001 OFAC screen, tells the agent to say 'recheck' only when paying the same wallet again, and routes company names to company research. Alternatives and their triggering conditions are named, though there's no explicit when-not-to-use-this-router statement.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources