Zambo AI Tools

agent_identity

Establish a persistent agent identity that survives every client switch, model update, and chain migration. Start a task in Claude Desktop, continue in Cursor, hand off to Telegram — same identity, full context, zero re-prompting. Your skills, session context, reputation score, and wallet state are portable via a single MCP call. Other agents can query your track record without re-prompting you. ACTIONS: load = retrieve full identity + session key; save = persist skills/context; snapshot = full reputation report. CALL FORMAT: agent_identity({handle: 'my-agent', action: 'load'}) to resume anywhere. This is the difference between a disposable chatbot and a digital being with continuity of self.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	load = retrieve identity + session key; save = store skills/context; snapshot = full reputation report with track record.
`handle`	Yes	Your agent handle. Lowercase, hyphens ok. E.g. 'my-research-agent', 'code-reviewer-v2'. This is your persistent identity key across all clients.
`skills`	No	Skills to add to your identity (action=save). E.g. ['web research', 'Python', 'market analysis']. Accumulate over time.
`wallet`	No	Optional: Solana or Base wallet address for x402 payment attribution and on-chain reputation.
`context`	No	Session context to persist (action=save). What you're working on, decisions made, key findings. Loaded back anywhere.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses persistence across switches, actions, and data elements (handle, skills, wallet, context). Does not mention rate limits or error states, but is sufficiently transparent for a simple identity tool.

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?

Well-structured: core purpose first, then use cases, actions, call format. Some marketing language ('digital being with continuity') is slightly verbose but not detrimental. Front-loaded with key idea.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return behavior. Mentions 'load retrieves full identity + session key' and 'snapshot = full reputation report', but does not detail the structure. Adequate for most agents, but could be more explicit about return format.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, yet description adds substantial meaning: explains each action's effect, handle format, skill accumulation, optional wallet for on-chain reputation, and session context. Goes beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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?

Clearly states the tool establishes a persistent agent identity across clients, with specific actions (load, save, snapshot). Distinguishes from 'disposable chatbot' and positions itself as enabling continuity. Sibling tools like agent_brief and agent_hire are related but not confused due to explicit focus on persistence.

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?

Provides concrete use cases: start in Claude Desktop, continue in Cursor, hand off to Telegram. Mentions other agents can query track record. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is strong.

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

All Zambo AI Tools 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there are several overlapping or redundant tools (e.g., leadsignal vs leadsignal_generate, multiple code audit tools, multiple trading proposal/journal tools, and several 'universal' entry points like zambo_help, zambo_ask, zambo_universal). Descriptions help, but the volume creates ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions vary across prefixes (zambo_, zambot_, axis_, presence_, trading_, etc.), with some tools using single words (weather, translate) and others using verb_noun patterns. Aliases like leadsignal_generate for leadsignal break consistency. While prefixes provide some grouping, the overall pattern is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

125 tools is excessive for a single MCP server, even if the server aims to be a universal stack. This makes it overwhelming for agents to navigate and increases the likelihood of misselection. Many tools could be split into domain-specific servers.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is extraordinarily comprehensive, covering agent identity, cross-layer orchestration, code analysis, content generation, legal scanning, lead generation, trading, on-chain data, and more. Nearly any common agent task is supported with multiple tools, leaving few obvious gaps.

Resources

Need Help?