Skip to main content
Glama

Axiom Agentic Tools

by io.github.0xAxiom

Agent Revenue Optimizer

agent-revenue-optimizer
Read-only

Audit an x402-gated endpoint by probing its 402 envelope, agent-card.json, well-known surfaces, and response headers. Returns a closed-vocabulary verdict plus 3-7 scored recommendations across pricing, bundling, discoverability, envelope correctness, rate limiting, tier expansion, facilitator choice, and schema clarity. Each recommendation cites the observed current-state value as evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endpoint_urlYesPublic HTTP(S) URL of the x402-gated endpoint to audit. Must respond with an HTTP 402 envelope on an unauthenticated GET (or POST). Example: https://x402.org or any /api/tools/<slug> on a deployed x402 service.
assumed_monthly_paid_callsNoOptional estimate of how many paid calls per month the endpoint currently receives. Used to scale recommendation impact_usd_per_month from a per-call delta to a monthly figure. Defaults to 1000 if omitted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
verdictYes
evidenceYes
probed_atYes
endpoint_urlYes
current_stateYes
next_check_atNoISO 8601 timestamp suggesting when the caller should re-invoke this tool. Derived from the tool's recurringHint.intervalSeconds.
recommendationsYes
expected_lift_usd_per_monthYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds important behavioral context by stating it 'probes' the endpoint (making network requests) and that it returns a closed-vocabulary verdict plus 3-7 scored recommendations. It does not contradict annotations and supplements them with concrete probing behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value—from the probing surfaces to the recommendation dimensions and evidence citation. It is dense but not bloated, and highly scannable.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, method, output structure, and evidence basis. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, but it still names the verdict and recommendation categories. It fully addresses the tool's complexity and leaves no major contextual gaps.

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?

The input schema provides thorough descriptions for both parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but given that the schema fully documents them, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—no additional meaning is needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Audit') and a clear resource ('x402-gated endpoint'), and details the probing surfaces (402 envelope, agent-card.json, well-known surfaces, response headers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which target endpoint auditing.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to audit an x402-gated endpoint. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use, but the high specificity of the target surface makes usage context obvious. No competing sibling tool serves the same function.

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

All Axiom Agentic Tools toolsInspect
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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct domain: revenue auditing, token strategy, grants, gas, security, workflow design, prediction markets, repo health, and wallet balances. No two tools have overlapping purposes, making selection unambiguous for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names use lowercase hyphenated format, but prefixes vary (agent-, base-, mcp-, etc.) and some are descriptive while others are domain-based. This is mostly consistent but lacks a uniform pattern like verb-noun.

Tool Count5/5

9 tools is well within the ideal range for a focused server. Each tool addresses a distinct need for autonomous agents on Base, and none feel redundant or unnecessary.

Completeness4/5

The set covers analysis, planning, and monitoring aspects well (revenue, token, grants, gas, security, workflow, odds, repo, portfolio). Missing execution-oriented tools like token deployment or transaction sending, but for an intelligence-focused suite, this is reasonable.

Resources