Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Agoranome seller tools

by io.github.Agoranome
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Repeat demand

repeat_demand
Read-only

Is demand in my x402 category coming back? One signed number: 30-day repeat calls in a Bazaar category in the newest complete weekly snapshot (listings whose calls are at least twice their payers, so one-call-per-payer sweeps are left out) against the week before, with the repeat-use listings behind it and the category's share of all repeat calls. Unchanged answers asked with their ETag are a free 304. Price: $0.002 in USDC per call, paid with x402 inside the tool call. Or send a Skyfire pay or kya-pay token in the kyapay-token header (or in this tool's kyapay-token argument), and this tool charges $0.002 to it. Failed calls aren't charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "repeat_demand"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryYesThe category
kyapay-tokenNoA Skyfire pay or kya-pay token made for Agoranome's service, from a client that can't set the kyapay-token header. Leave it out when paying with x402 or the header.
if_none_matchNoSend the answer's ETag back in If-None-Match (over MCP, the if_none_match argument): while the answer is unchanged it comes back as a free 304 Not Modified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnly/openWorld; the description adds the material the agent actually needs: $0.002 USDC per call, three payment paths (x402 in-call, Skyfire pay/kya-pay token via header or argument), failed calls not charged, and free 304s for unchanged answers. That is real behavioral and cost disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 metric definition is front-loaded before pricing mechanics, which is the right order, and every sentence is functional. It is dense and slightly redundant on price ('$0.002 in USDC per call' then 'charges $0.002 to it') and the nested parentheses in the metric sentence slow parsing.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back (one signed number, the repeat-use listings, the category's share) and covers the two operational risks, cost and caching. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears to be missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so category, kyapay-token and if_none_match are already documented. The description reinforces the ETag/if_none_match round-trip and the kyapay-token alternative, but adds little syntax or semantics the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening question plus the definition ('30-day repeat calls in a Bazaar category in the newest complete weekly snapshot ... against the week before') states a concrete metric and even the counting rule (listings with calls at least twice their payers). It is clearly not a generic category or payer report, though it never names which sibling (e.g. demand_gaps, category_brief) it should be preferred over.

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 framing 'Is demand in my x402 category coming back?' plus 'one signed number' gives a clear decision context for when to call it, and the ETag/304 and payment paragraphs tell the agent how to call it cheaply. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

All Agoranome seller tools toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources