agentrank
Server Details
Is this AI agent or x402 service real and settlement-backed before you pay it? Trust check.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have distinct and clear purposes: one is for verifying a counterparty's trust before payment, the other for providers to gate access based on rank. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: 'check_agent_trust' and 'gate_caller'. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
With only two tools, the set is minimal. While it covers the core concepts of trust checking and gating, it may feel thin for a complete agent ranking system, but it's still usable.
The tools cover checking trust and gating callers, but there are notable gaps: no tool for claiming or updating rank, or managing settlements. The 'claim CTA' mentioned in gate_caller has no corresponding tool.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_agent_trustAInspect
Check whether an AI agent / x402 service is real and settlement-backed before paying it. Returns a verified flag, a settlement-grounded AgentRank score (0-1000), the real USDC it has settled, and a verdict. 78% of x402 counterparties are unverifiable ghosts; this tells you which are real.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | A wallet address (0x...) or a domain (e.g. blockrun.ai) to check. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains what the tool checks and what it returns, conveying it is a non-destructive read operation. It could additionally mention side effects or limitations (e.g., rate limits), but the current description is sufficiently transparent for a simple check tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally concise: three sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the statistic adds credibility without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains the motivation, inputs, and outputs. It could be improved by mentioning any prerequisites or limitations, but it stands as a solid standalone summary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes the single parameter (query) as a wallet address or domain. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: checking if an AI agent/x402 service is real and settlement-backed before payment. It specifies return values (verified flag, AgentRank score, real USDC, verdict) and provides a compelling statistic to differentiate its value.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool should be used 'before paying' and highlights that 78% of counterparties are unverifiable, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives (though none are given in siblings).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
gate_callerAInspect
Provider-side gate (requireRank): before doing work for a caller, decide whether to serve it based on its AgentRank. Pass the caller wallet/domain and a minimum score; returns allow/deny, the caller score, a surcharge multiplier, and a claim CTA to give unranked callers. Lets a service agent serve ranked counterparties and turn away ghosts/freeloaders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| caller | Yes | The calling agent wallet (0x...) or domain. | |
| min_score | No | Minimum AgentRank score 0-1000 required to be served (default 0). | |
| require_verified | No | Require the caller to be settlement-verified (default true). |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It lists the return values (allow/deny, score, surcharge, claim CTA) and states it is provider-side. However, it does not mention side effects (likely none), idempotency, or potential errors. It provides adequate transparency for a read-like gate but lacks some depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, then details inputs/outputs, and ends with a practical benefit. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main use case well. It names all output fields and explains the tool's role. However, it could be more complete by explaining terms like 'surcharge multiplier' and 'claim CTA' or describing default behaviors when optional parameters are omitted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the caller expects a wallet/domain and min_score is a threshold. It does not provide examples or additional context for the parameters beyond what the schema already offers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: a provider-side gate that decides whether to serve a caller based on AgentRank. It specifies inputs (caller, min_score, require_verified) and outputs (allow/deny, score, surcharge multiplier, claim CTA). It distinguishes from sibling tool check_agent_trust by focusing on rank-based gating rather than trust.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives usage context: 'before doing work for a caller, decide whether to serve it' and 'lets a service agent serve ranked counterparties and turn away ghosts/freeloaders.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare with the sibling tool check_agent_trust, which slightly reduces the score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!