Skip to main content
Glama

x402-solana

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

agent_rank_check

Quick check of where an x402 seller ranks RIGHT NOW by keyword-relevance in the CDP Bazaar discovery (not the raw settled-volume rank the free explorers show): best rank + per-category-keyword rank in one cheap call, plus a pointer to the full /agent/visibility-audit when the rank slips. The frequent pulse for monitoring your x402 discoverability. Where do I rank now? Am I being out-ranked on my category keywords? Price: $0.10 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sellerYesSeller to check: wallet (0x + 40 hex or Solana base58) or origin URL/domain, e.g. 'api.example.com'

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the $0.10 per-call price, x402 payment method, and Base mainnet USDC, and clearly implies a read-only monitoring operation through 'check', 'pulse', and 'where do I rank now'. It does not detail rate limits or authentication, but for a low-cost read-like check the key traits are covered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output, and the subsequent sentences add useful usage and pricing context. The rhetorical questions ('Where do I rank now? Am I being out-ranked?') add a slightly promotional tone but do not waste significant space; overall it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description explains the output composition (best rank + per-category-keyword rank) and the fallback to the visibility audit. For a single-parameter read-only check, this is largely complete; minor gaps remain on exact response format or rank definition, but the description covers the essential context.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'seller' parameter, which already documents wallet or origin URL/domain formats. The description adds context about the seller being an x402 seller in CDP Bazaar, but does not materially extend parameter semantics beyond the schema; hence baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: checking an x402 seller's current keyword-relevance rank in CDP Bazaar discovery. It distinguishes this from raw settled-volume rank shown by free explorers and from the sibling tool 'agent_visibility_audit', making its unique purpose evident.

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?

The description explicitly frames this as a frequent pulse/cheap monitoring call, and explicitly points to the full '/agent/visibility-audit' when rank slips, naming the alternative. It also contrasts with free volume-rank explorers, providing clear when-to-use vs when-not-to guidance.

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

All x402-solana 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There is notable overlap between crypto_pre_trade_verdict and solana_pre_trade, both providing pre-trade decisions for Solana. The agent_rank_check and agent_visibility_audit are also similar in purpose but differentiated by depth. However, descriptions are detailed enough to clarify the intended use, so ambiguity is moderate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and often include domain prefixes like crypto_, solana_, and agent_. Minor deviations exist, such as solana_pre_trade lacking the 'verdict' suffix seen in crypto_pre_trade_verdict, and standalone names like gleif_lei and polymarket_odds that don't follow a domain-prefix pattern. Overall, the style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool serves a distinct purpose or tier (e.g., quick check vs. deep audit), and the count feels appropriate for a multi-purpose utility server without being overwhelming or sparse.

Completeness3/5

The server covers several domains, but each has gaps. For example, there is no dedicated wallet address sanctions screening tool (only fused into crypto_pre_trade_verdict), no token price or market data tool outside of the dossier, and no agent search or listing functionality. However, the core risk-check workflows (token safety, pre-trade, agent visibility) are reasonably well-covered with both quick and detailed tiers.

Resources