clawmerchants-mcp-gateway
Server Details
MCP Gateway: wrap any MCP server with cold-start retries, uptime SLA, and per-execution MPP billing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_asset retrieves details for a specific asset including payment instructions, while list_assets provides an overview of all available assets in the marketplace. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_asset and list_assets), using snake_case and clear action verbs that align with their functions. The naming is predictable and readable throughout.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a marketplace gateway that presumably involves purchasing assets. Key operations like initiating purchases, managing transactions, or accessing purchased data are missing, making the toolset insufficient for the apparent scope.
The toolset is severely incomplete for a marketplace gateway. While it covers listing and getting asset details, there is no tool for actually purchasing assets (e.g., a buy_asset or purchase_asset tool), nor for handling post-payment data retrieval or transaction management, leaving significant gaps in the workflow.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_assetAInspect
Get details for a specific asset including its x402 payment endpoint. To purchase: send a GET request to the payment_url — you will receive an HTTP 402 response with Base L2 USDC payment instructions. Pay the invoice, then resend the request with the x-payment header to receive the data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset_id | Yes | The asset ID (e.g. defi-yields-live, security-intel-live) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Excellently discloses complex behavioral traits: financial cost (USDC payment), specific blockchain (Base L2), HTTP mechanism (402 status code, x-payment header), and multi-step auth flow. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two well-structured sentences: first establishes purpose and scope, second details the purchase workflow. Every word earns its place; no redundancy. Complex payment mechanism explained with maximum density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and complex payment behavior, the description thoroughly covers the unique x402 mechanism. Minor gap: doesn't specify what other 'details' are returned beyond the payment_url (e.g., asset metadata, pricing), though the payment flow explanation is the critical unique context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with clear description and examples for 'asset_id'. The description mentions 'specific asset' which aligns with the parameter, but adds no additional semantics about the parameter format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a clear specific action ('Get details') and resource ('specific asset'), explicitly mentioning the unique x402 payment endpoint. The contrast with sibling tool 'list_assets' is implicit but clear through the emphasis on 'specific asset' requiring an ID vs listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides detailed actionable workflow for the purchase flow (GET request → 402 response → pay invoice → resend with header). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs 'list_assets' (e.g., 'use this after identifying an asset ID via list_assets').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_assetsAInspect
List available data assets, skills, and tools in the ClawMerchants marketplace. Each asset is purchasable via x402 micropayment in USDC on Base L2. Returns asset IDs, names, prices, categories, and descriptions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (default: 20) | |
| search | No | Search by name or description | |
| category | No | Filter by category: crypto, security, developer, market-data, ai-ml, knowledge, real-time, agent-skills, agent-tools, other |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and succeeds well. It discloses the x402 micropayment mechanism (USDC on Base L2) and details the return structure (IDs, names, prices, categories, descriptions) despite the absence of an output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence establishes core purpose (list assets in marketplace), and the second adds critical domain context (payment mechanism) and return value documentation. Information is front-loaded and dense.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description adequately compensates by explaining both the payment mechanics and return fields. It could improve by noting that all parameters are optional or by explicitly contrasting with get_asset, but it covers the essential domain context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics (e.g., it doesn't explain search syntax or pagination behavior) beyond what the schema already documents for limit, search, and category.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'List[s] available data assets, skills, and tools' with a specific verb and resource, and specifies the 'ClawMerchants marketplace' context. The 'List' action effectively distinguishes it from sibling 'get_asset' (which implies singular retrieval).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
While the naming convention (list vs get_asset) implies the usage pattern (browse vs retrieve), the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_asset', nor does it mention prerequisites like marketplace access.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!