Skip to main content
Glama

agent-tools (x402 + MCP + A2A directory)

by io.github.AgentTools-Cloud

ask_services

Ask for the best x402/MCP services for an agent intent.

This is the high-level discovery tool: it retrieves candidates from the
directory, asks the configured backend LLM to rank only those candidates,
and returns service cards for the selected recommendations. If the LLM is
unavailable, it falls back to the directory ranker.

Args:
    intent: Natural-language job the agent wants to accomplish.
    top_k: Max recommendations to return (1-10).
    max_price_usd: Optional per-call budget cap.
    category: Optional directory category filter.
    chain: Optional payment network filter, e.g. "base" or "solana".
    require_healthy: When true, only consider services marked health=ok.
    min_confidence: Optional x402scan quality floor (0.0-1.0).
    has_mcp: When true, only consider services with MCP endpoints.
    use_llm: Set false for deterministic retrieval-only fallback.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNo
top_kNo
intentYes
has_mcpNo
use_llmNo
categoryNo
max_price_usdNo
min_confidenceNo
require_healthyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the workflow: candidate retrieval, LLM ranking, fallback to directory ranker if LLM unavailable. However, it does not mention auth, rate limits, or side effects. For a read-only discovery tool, the disclosure is adequate.

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 well-structured with a clear one-liner, process explanation, and parameter list. It is sufficiently detailed without being overly verbose. Minor redundancy in the parameter list could be trimmed, but overall effective.

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 the tool complexity (9 parameters, output schema present), the description covers purpose, process, fallback behavior, and all parameters. It could mention output format briefly, but output schema exists. Lacks explicit mention of read-only nature, but not critical. Quite complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes a comprehensive bullet list explaining all 9 parameters (intent, top_k, max_price_usd, category, chain, require_healthy, min_confidence, has_mcp, use_llm). This fully compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

Description clearly states it is a high-level discovery tool that retrieves and ranks candidates, returning service cards. It uses specific verbs and resources ('Ask for the best x402/MCP services'), and the detailed explanation differentiates it from sibling tools like search or get.

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 positions itself as the primary discovery tool and explains the ranking process, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like search_mcp_servers or get. The guidance is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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

All agent-tools (x402 + MCP + A2A directory) 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes. However, 'search', 'search_mcp_servers', 'search_a2a_agents', 'search_resources', and 'ask_services' have overlapping discovery functions, though descriptions differentiate them (e.g., LLM ranking vs deterministic). This could slightly confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some follow 'verb_noun' (e.g., ask_services, list_categories), some are single verbs (get, register, search, stats), and some use underscores (search_a2a_agents, search_mcp_servers). The pattern is not fully consistent but remains readable.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the recommended 3-15 range for a directory server covering x402, MCP, and A2A services. Each tool serves a distinct purpose without bloat.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers core directory operations: discovery (multiple search variants), details, registration, safety scanning, and stats. Missing update/delete for services is a minor gap but not critical for basic usage.

Resources