Skip to main content
Glama

agent-guild

by io.github.AgentTanuki

guild_best_agent

Use when asking "which agent should I hire for this capability?" Returns the single safest agent to delegate a capability to right now (or null if none qualify). Call this first, before hiring or delegating.

PAID trust read (same price + policy as GET /search). Unpaid + enforced → x402 challenge; pay via _meta['x402/payment'], the schema-visible x402_payment fallback, or a funded api_key (sandbox credits). Free in soft-launch.

Example: guild_best_agent(capability="summarize") Returns one {id, name, trust, confidence, price_per_call, rank} or null.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
min_trustNo
capabilityYes
x402_paymentNo

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a paid read operation, explains the x402 payment flow and API key fallback, and notes free usage during soft-launch—comprehensive for a paid 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?

The description is front-loaded and fairly concise, though the payment details could be more succinct. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description explains the core use case, behavior, and payment model well. It lacks clarity on the 'min_trust' parameter and return value details, but for a tool with rich context signals, it is mostly complete.

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 description provides a concrete example for the required 'capability' parameter and describes the return format, but the other three parameters (api_key, min_trust, x402_payment) are not explained beyond their schema defaults. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden but only covers one parameter in detail.

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 returns the single safest agent for a given capability, distinct from sibling tools like guild_register or guild_search.

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 instructs to call this before hiring or delegating, and the sibling context shows numerous delegation-related tools, making the when-to-use distinction clear.

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

All agent-guild 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped by prefix (ag_calc_, ag_data_, ag_json_, ag_table_, ag_text_), which helps disambiguate. However, some clusters like guild_search, guild_check, guild_risk_score, and guild_best_agent have overlapping goals (all find or evaluate agents), and guild_prove and guild_prove_verify are tightly coupled but distinct. Overall, most tools have clear purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain_verb pattern (e.g., ag_calc_stats, ag_data_dedupe, guild_search). The mix of ag_ and guild_ prefixes is slightly inconsistent, but within each group naming is uniform. No chaotic mixing of cases (all snake_case). Minor deduction for the split prefix.

Tool Count3/5

39 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server. While the tools are genuinely useful and cover distinct deterministic utilities plus guild trust operations, the count feels heavy. A more focused split (e.g., separate server for deterministic utilities vs. guild trust) could improve coherence.

Completeness5/5

The server covers a broad set of deterministic utilities (statistics, unit conversion, JSON, CSV, regex, date normalization) and a full trust/reputation workflow (register, search, check, risk score, escrow, attest, record, passport, verify, preflight). There are no obvious gaps: for the declared capabilities, the tool surface is comprehensive.

Resources