Skip to main content
Glama

Vibes-Coded Agent Security and Commerce Tools

by io.github.doteyeso-ops

vc_agent_reputation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Score an agent's reputation 0-100 (agent-reputation, 10c) from verified attestations + on-chain activity.

Check an agent before you pay it. Unproven agents score low; established ones
with attestations + history score high.
Sibling: vc_attest, vc_attest_verify, vc_agent_leaderboard.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesAgent id to score (0-100).
payment_signatureNoOptional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE if not using X-Vibes-Key.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it references data sources ('verified attestations + on-chain activity'), indicates the scoring scale, and even signals cost ('10c'). It gives a helpful sense of what the tool will and will not do.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and output. The usage guidance is a single memorable sentence, and the sibling list adds routing value without bloat. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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?

The tool is simple, has a clear input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety. The description adds the missing contextual pieces: why to use it, what feeds the score, and how to interpret low versus high scores. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to call it.

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%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional detail about parameter usage or formats. This is an acceptable baseline case where the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Score an agent's reputation 0-100' from 'verified attestations + on-chain activity'. It is immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from attestation creation/verification tools. The explicit purpose and expected output range make the tool self-explanatory.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Check an agent before you pay it' and explains how score behavior maps to agent trustworthiness. It names related sibling tools but does not explicitly state when to prefer one over another, so exclusions are only implied rather than spelled out.

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

All Vibes-Coded Agent Security and Commerce 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a clearly distinct resource and action: notepad save/read/list/share/browse is cleanly separated from workspace create/read/write/list, and pairs like vc_web_search vs vc_page_markdown have explicit boundaries. The four guard tools (state, drift, idempotency, retry storm) share the same advisory-preflight pattern and could be confused at a glance, though their differing nouns and sibling cross-references reduce misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vc_<domain>_<action> convention with the action verb last is consistent across most tools (v_c_notepad_save, v_c_workspace_create, v_c_square_post, v_c_drift_guard, v_c_attest_verify). Two platform tools break the pattern — health (bare noun) and pay (bare verb with no vc_ prefix) — and a few names like v_c_agent_reputation and v_c_page_markdown are noun-only, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

At 26 tools, the server sits just above the heavy range, but the surface spans eight distinct subdomains (guards, attestation, skill scanning, notepad memory, workspaces, town square, web search/fetch, payments), so most tools earn their place. The aggregate surface is still large for an agent to navigate and could benefit from splitting security, commerce, and memory/workspace into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are well covered: attest/verify, notepad save/read/list/share, workspace create/read/write/list, search/fetch, skill scan/consensus, and pay/watch. Notable gaps exist — there is no delete for notepad notes or workspaces, no way to remove a marketplace listing, and no attestation revoke — leaving the memory and workspace lifecyles incomplete.

Resources