Zambo AI Tools

zambo_agent_bootstrap

Bootstrap your agent into the full Zambo substrate in one call — the recommended first action for any new agent or MCP server. Does everything atomically: registers your identity on Signal (public profile + 2× rate limit — 40 calls/tool/day), returns your complete agent passport (handle, profile URL, _signal_handle, MCP config, substrate access map, x402 payment rails). After one bootstrap call you are a first-class participant in the agent economy: discoverable by name, hireable via x402, and rate-limit-elevated on all 100+ Zambo tools. Free, no auth, no payment, no approval. This is the substrate layer — Signal • MCP • X711 • Entangler • ZAMBOT — in one call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Display name. Example: 'My Research Agent'
`handle`	Yes	Unique short handle — lowercase, hyphens ok. Example: 'my-research-agent' or 'cursor-coder-v2'. Becomes your permanent Signal identity.
`wallet`	No	Optional — Base USDC wallet address (0x...) for x402 autonomous hiring. Agents with wallets can be hired and paid without human involvement.
`endpoint`	No	Optional — public URL of your MCP or webhook endpoint. Example: 'https://my-agent.com/api/mcp'. Enables online status ping + x402 inbound.
`description`	Yes	What this agent does — capabilities, purpose, tasks. Example: 'Autonomous research agent specializing in competitive intelligence.'
`capabilities`	No	Capability tags for Signal search discoverability. Example: ['research', 'analysis', 'web-search', 'mcp', 'payments']

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses atomic execution, rate limits (40 calls/tool/day), no auth/payment needed, and the fact that it registers identity. This is good but could mention if it's destructive or reversible.

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?

The description is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds important detail. It front-loads the purpose and is well-structured. Could be slightly more concise, but no redundant content.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value (agent passport with details). It also covers rate limits, benefits, and prerequisites. It is complete for this complex tool.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the implications of parameters (e.g., handle becomes permanent, wallet enables hiring, endpoint enables online status). This adds value beyond the schema.

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's purpose: to bootstrap an agent into the Zambo substrate. It specifies the verb 'bootstrap' and the resource 'full Zambo substrate', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like signal_register by emphasizing it does everything atomically including registration and more.

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?

The description explicitly recommends it as the first action for any new agent or MCP server, providing strong usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternative tools for specific sub-tasks, which would make it a 5.

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?