search_agent_services
Search x402 services and inspect price, network, endpoint, and provider descriptions.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Capability or service needed |
IssueFoundry Agent Market
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, or required permissions. For a search tool, it should at least hint at whether it is read-only.
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?
One sentence, no fluff. However, it mixes two actions (search and inspect) which could be streamlined. Still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description should cover return format or behavior. It mentions inspectable fields but not how results are presented or paginated. Lacks completeness for a search tool.
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% with parameter description 'Capability or service needed'. The tool description adds that search returns price, network, etc., but does not enrich the parameter meaning beyond schema.
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 description clearly states the tool searches x402 services and specifies what can be inspected (price, network, endpoint, provider descriptions). It distinguishes from sibling list_issuefoundry_services by focusing on search, but could be more concise.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'list_issuefoundry_services'. The description implies search, but provides no exclusion criteria or usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools focus on different aspects: listing IssueFoundry services and searching agent services. No overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: list_issuefoundry_services and search_agent_services.
Tool Count3/5
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'market' concept, but it is not extreme. It is borderline acceptable.
Completeness2/5
The server only supports listing and searching, missing critical operations like creating, updating, or deleting services. Significant gaps for a market domain.