Zambo AI Tools

day_pass_activate

Activate a 24-hour unlimited Zambo Pass for $1.49. Two crypto options: (A) USDC on Base — Send exactly 1.49 USDC on Base to 0xb753be5Eac5B29c711051DfF91279834e9C9b9AC, or (B) $ZAMBO on Solana — Send the quoted $ZAMBO amount to GuGoJPgF2wufK5U983oTwW5mXJb3GN9KNyj9S5gyffkH (20% off vs USD price — call zambo-quote endpoint first). Then call this tool with your email + the tx_hash from your wallet. Grants instant 24h unlimited access to all 100+ tools across both MCPs. No crypto? Card/Apple Pay at https://zambo.dev/pricing?ref=mcp&tier=day — For monthly unlimited ($49/mo): https://zambo.dev/pricing

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Your email address — used to link the 24h pass to your account.
`tx_hash`	Yes	Transaction hash after sending payment. USDC on Base: get from your wallet or basescan.org. $ZAMBO on Solana: get from your wallet or solscan.io.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that activation grants 'instant 24h unlimited access' and specifies exact addresses and amounts. However, it doesn't mention error handling, transaction validity checks, or any idempotency. Still, the core behavioral impact is clear.

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?

Two well-structured paragraphs: first instructs core activation with payment options, second provides non-crypto alternatives and monthly option. Every sentence is necessary, front-loaded with key action, and no redundant information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a payment-activated pass with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the outcome ('grants instant 24h unlimited access') and covers all payment paths and prerequisites, leaving no gaps for an AI agent to understand invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (email, tx_hash). The description adds minor context (e.g., email used to link pass, tx_hash sources) but does not significantly improve understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool activates a 24-hour unlimited Zambo Pass for $1.49, specifying verb ('activate') and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on this specific one-day pass activation, with no similar tools among siblings.

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?

Explicitly provides two crypto payment options (USDC, $ZAMBO) and prerequisites (call zambo-quote for option B), plus alternatives: Card/Apple Pay link for no crypto, and a monthly subscription link. Clearly indicates when to use this tool (after sending payment) and when not.

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?