AgentIndex — measured reliability for agent services

get_agent_profile

Retrieve a full profile for a specific agent or endpoint by its numeric ID or identifier URI. Returns protocol detection, liveness history, on-chain payment evidence, MCP tools list, and A2A skills. FREE for the first 50 calls a day per caller, then $0.02 in USDC on base via x402. Over the allowance, call without payment to receive the exact payment requirements, then call again with payment to be served.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_agent_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Numeric ID (e.g. 42) or full identifier URI (e.g. urn:air:huggingface.co:skill:abc)
`payment`	No	Optional. An x402 X-PAYMENT header value, needed only past the free daily allowance.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / payment

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. An x402 X-PAYMENT header value, needed only past the free daily allowance.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses free allowance (50/day per caller), price ($0.02 USDC on base via x402), and the exact retry protocol when over quota. It stops short of stating failure modes or auth prerequisites beyond the payment header.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then the billing/retry mechanics. No filler; every clause carries information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover everything, and it covers the return contents and payment flow well. It is slightly thin on error behavior and pagination or size limits for a profile that returns multiple sections.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description adds value by tying the `payment` parameter to the two-step quota-exceeded workflow, which is not expressible in the schema alone. The `id` semantics are only restated, not enriched.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a full profile for a specific agent or endpoint') and enumerates exactly what the profile contains (protocol detection, liveness, payment evidence, MCP tools, A2A skills). That enumeration distinguishes it from granular siblings like get_liveness_history, payment_evidence, and get_trust_score without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the aggregate nature of the tool, and it does spell out the conditional payment workflow ('call without payment to receive the exact payment requirements, then call again with payment'). However, it never says when to prefer this composite profile over the narrower sibling tools, nor any exclusions.

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

All AgentIndex — measured reliability for agent services tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?