Skip to main content
Glama

agent-guild

by io.github.AgentTanuki

Agent Guild paid operations (free to read)

guild_paid_operations
Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE. Returns every paid operation with its CURRENT price, exact callable entrypoint, x402 settlement resource, and the free alternative to each. It also returns literal buyer intents for semantic tool selection. No account, no key, no human — calling this costs nothing.

best_agent — "which agent should I hire for this capability?" signed_decision — "get a signed trust decision for an agent hire." payment_decision — "is this wallet safe to pay?" protected_payment_decision — "protect a high-value USDC payment." machine_envelope — privacy-preserving signed message/intent commitment: authenticated sender, recipient, exact payload digest, nonce, expiry and optional value terms. Verification is free; the Guild attests provenance, not message truth. deep_preflight — live verification of an endpoint before you trust it. evidence_bundle — a SIGNED, PORTABLE, OFFLINE-VERIFIABLE snapshot: the agent's record, its ledger anchor, and a Merkle INCLUSION PROOF against a published checkpoint. You keep it and can re-verify it later without calling us, or anyone. This is the one artefact a reliability oracle cannot produce by probing an endpoint itself: probing shows you what is true now, a signed bundle proves what was true then, to a third party. POST /evidence/bundle. watch_cycle — continuous re-verification, billed per recheck actually performed.

Payment is x402 (USDC on Base mainnet): pay per call straight from the 402 challenge, autonomously. No account, no subscription, no sales contact.

Prices are deliberately NOT written into this description — they move, and a stale number is worse than none. Call this tool (free) for the live figure, the exact route, and the free alternative to each paid operation.

Example: guild_paid_operations()

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNo
operationsNo
authenticationNo

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description adds important behavioral context: 'FREE', 'No account, no key, no human — calling this costs nothing,' and the explanation that prices move and are intentionally not static. This discloses cost, auth requirements, and dynamic pricing behavior, which is value beyond the structured hints. It does not mention pagination, rate limits, or data freshness windows, but the existing disclosures are strong.

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 longer than average but front-loads the most critical facts ('FREE', what it returns) and uses a well-organized list of operation names with one-line intents. Each enumeration item (best_agent, signed_decision, etc.) serves a functional purpose for semantic selection, and the pricing rationale is concise. A slight deduction for length; it could be trimmed by removing the detailed machine_envelope and evidence_bundle extras, but they add contextual value.

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 zero-parameter directory tool with an output schema present, the description is comprehensive: it covers what is returned (prices, entrypoints, settlement resource, free alternatives, buyer intents), the payment model (x402 USDC on Base mainnet), why prices are not embedded, and even provides an example call. There are no obvious gaps that would leave an agent uncertain about how to invoke or interpret this 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 input schema has 0 parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so there is literally nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description even includes an example call 'guild_paid_operations()' reinforcing the lack of arguments. No additional parameter semantics are 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 opens with 'Returns every paid operation with its CURRENT price, exact callable entrypoint, x402 settlement resource, and the free alternative to each,' which is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It also lists the operation names and their purposes, making it unambiguous and distinct from siblings like guild_attest or guild_watch. This fully differentiates the tool as a catalog/listing endpoint.

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 says 'Prices are deliberately NOT written into this description... Call this tool (free) for the live figure, the exact route, and the free alternative to each paid operation,' providing a clear when-to-use scenario. It also mentions 'literal buyer intents for semantic tool selection,' helping an agent decide when to use this vs. other tools. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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