Skip to main content
Glama

laen

by io.github.LedgerProof

army_buy

PAID (your wallet). Submit the signed X-PAYMENT payload your client produced for this service's requirements and receive the deliverable plus a FREE cryptographic hash receipt with an independently checkable verify_url. Fail-closed and proof-gated: if the deliverable does not pass its published acceptance rule, the response is an error and YOUR AUTHORIZATION IS NEVER CAPTURED — you are not charged for work that failed its own test. Without x_payment this returns the 402 requirements so you can pay and retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputNothe request body for the service
x_paymentNobase64 X-PAYMENT payload signed by YOUR wallet for this service's x402 requirements
service_idYessoldier id, e.g. sol-01-web-search

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses payment semantics, fail-closed behavior, proof-gating, the no-charge-on-failure guarantee, the fact that authorization is never captured, and the 402 fallback when x_payment is missing.

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?

All sentences are substantive and the description front-loads the critical payment cue. It explains success, failure, no-charge behavior, and missing-payment behavior in a compact, structured paragraph without redundant fluff.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is unusually complete: it covers when to call, preconditions, failure modes, payment safety, and receipt outputs. It gives the agent enough context to select, invoke, and understand the result flow.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is satisfied. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: x_payment must be signed by your wallet, omitted payment causes a 402 response, and service_id maps to soldier ids like sol-01-web-search. It does not fully explain the shape of the input object, but the schema covers that.

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 this is a paid purchase/execution tool: submit the X-PAYMENT payload and receive the deliverable plus a hash receipt. It distinguishes itself from siblings like army_list_services and army_quote by emphasizing payment and the signed payload requirement.

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?

It explicitly says this tool is for submitting a signed X-PAYMENT payload and that without x_payment it returns 402 requirements so the agent can pay and retry. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for quoting or listing services, though the sibling names and context make that reasonably clear.

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

All laen 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct: army_list_services and army_quote are clear (list vs. quote), and laen_find_blockers and laen_quote are similar but one finds blockers and the other quotes a specific blocker. However, army_quote and laen_quote both serve the purpose of providing payment requirements for their respective domains, and a agent might confuse which quote applies to which service. The distinction is reinforced by naming (army_ vs laen_) but still a minor overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming uses a mix of snake_case for verbs like 'army_buy' and 'army_list_services', but 'laen_find_blockers' and 'laen_resolve' follow a similar pattern. However, 'army_' and 'laen_' prefixes are inconsistent - one uses 'army' and the other 'laen', and the verbs are not consistently placed (buy vs list_services vs find_blockers vs resolve). The pattern is readable but not fully uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is appropriate for a server that spans two focused domains (Army services and LAEN blockers). Each tool has a clear role: list, quote, buy/resolve, and find, which is a tight functional set. This is well within the ideal range, and the server doesn't feel over- or under-loaded.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the full lifecycle for both domains: list services and find blockers (discovery), quote (pricing), and buy/resolve (payment and execution). The only gap is that there is no cancellation or refund tool, but given the fail-closed nature, that's not critical. The core workflow of discover->quote->pay->receive is complete.

Resources