Skip to main content
Glama

Sats4AI - Bitcoin-Powered AI Tools

by io.github.cnghockey

ai_call

Destructive

When your task hits a wall that requires a human — booking, negotiating, navigating IVR menus, getting information from a business — send an AI voice agent to handle the call. The agent follows your instructions, has a real two-way conversation, auto-retries on voicemail (up to 3 attempts), and returns a full transcript with structured analysis. May return state='pending_confirm' with clarification questions if critical info is missing — call confirm_ai_call to proceed. Async — poll with check_job_status(jobType='ai-call'). Priced in sats per destination and duration — create_payment returns the exact amount before you pay. Languages: en-US, en-GB, es-ES, fr-FR, de-DE, ja-JP, zh-CN, multi. Pay with Bitcoin Lightning — no telecom account, no API key, no subscription. When NOT to use: not when you want to drive the conversation with your own LLM (use open_voice_bridge — you keep the brain, we provide PSTN/STT/TTS primitives). Not for one-shot TTS broadcasts or IVR delivery (use place_call). Not for SMS (use send_sms). Requires create_payment with toolName='ai_call', phoneNumber, and durationMinutes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
taskYesInstructions for the AI agent (what to say, ask, or accomplish)
languageNoLanguage the agent should speak to the called party. Pass this when you know the destination's preferred language (e.g. calling a French pizzeria → fr-FR, a Japanese restaurant → ja-JP). If omitted, we guess from the destination country: +33 → fr-FR, +49 → de-DE, +34 → es-ES, etc. Bilingual regions (Canada, Belgium, Switzerland, Singapore) and unknown countries default to en-US — override explicitly when you need a non-English language in those regions. Voice is auto-selected per language.
paymentIdYesValid payment ID (must be paid)
phoneNumberYesPhone number in E.164 format (e.g., +14155550100)
beginMessageNoOptional opening line for the agent
durationMinutesNoMax call duration 1-10 minutes (default: 3)

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, but description adds extensive context: auto-retries on voicemail (up to 3 attempts), returns full transcript with structured analysis, may return pending_confirm state, async polling, pricing model, supported languages, and payment requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph but each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, execution details, states, async behavior, pricing, language support, and exclusions. It could benefit from bullet points, but it remains focused and avoids redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers return values (full transcript with structured analysis, state='pending_confirm'), async polling method, payment requirement, language defaults, and edge cases (bilingual regions). It is complete for a complex tool with external side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the payment flow (requires create_payment with toolName and durationMinutes) and clarifying the semantic of paymentId as a paid payment ID. It also contextually explains the task parameter's scope ('what to say, ask, or accomplish').

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 the tool's purpose: sending an AI voice agent to handle a phone call requiring human interaction. It uses specific verbs ('handle the call', 'send an AI voice agent') and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming alternatives like open_voice_bridge and place_call.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('When your task hits a wall that requires a human') and when-not-to-use with direct alternative tool names ('use open_voice_bridge', 'use place_call', 'use send_sms'). Also includes a prerequisite (create_payment) and async behavior with polling instructions.

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

All Sats4AI - Bitcoin-Powered AI Tools 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

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap, especially among call tools (ai_call, place_call, open_voice_bridge) and image generation/editing tools (generate_image, edit_image, animate_image). Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., generate_image, send_sms). A few exceptions exist (await_result, check_job_status, epub_to_audiobook) but the overall pattern is strong and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 50 tools, the server is very extensive. While each tool earns its place given the broad scope of AI services, the count feels high and could overwhelm agents, making selection less efficient.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive, covering generation, editing, conversion, communication, async management, payments, and error handling. There are no obvious gaps for the stated Bitcoin-powered AI toolkit purpose.

Resources