Skip to main content
Glama

GF Agent Toll

by io.github.hamadalmajdouie-rgb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gf.agent_budget

gf.agent_budget

Evaluate per-call, daily, monthly and approval limits before payment signing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed15 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
    • removedInput schema / properties / active
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / allowed_capabilities
      Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / allowed_providers
      Removed value: -{
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / capability_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / daily_limit_usdc
      Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / max_spend_usdc
      Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / monthly_limit_usdc
      Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / per_call_limit_usdc
      Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / price_usdc
      Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / provider_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / require_approval_above_usdc
      Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / spent_month_usdc
      Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / spent_today_usdc
      Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "price_usdc"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies an evaluation of limits before payment signing, but it does not state what the tool does with the results (e.g., returns a boolean, blocks signing), whether it mutates anything, or what happens if limits are exceeded. It lacks any details about side effects or data access.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose, but it is too sparse; it is a single sentence that does not elaborate. It earns its place but lacks the substance needed for a 4 or 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is marginally adequate. However, it does not explain the return format or how the evaluation integrates with the payment signing workflow dropped by the phrase 'before payment signing' – is it a prerequisite? A few more words on the outcome would improve completeness.

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?

The tool accepts zero parameters, so the description does not need to clarify parameter semantics beyond the schema. The description mentions the concepts of per-call, daily, monthly, and approval limits, which align with the schema's lack of parameters (since the tool likely uses context/token). However, it adds no specifics about what limits are evaluated or how they are configured.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'Evaluate' and the resources (per-call, daily, monthly, approval limits) but it is extremely brief and lacks a clear subject or context. The resource name 'agent_budget' is vague rooted in the domain 'gf', and the description does not distinguish this from many other status/check tools like gf.payment_status or gf.settlement_status. A clear statement of what this tool does (e.g., 'Checks the budget limits of the current agent for payment approval') is missing.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. With many status-like tools, the description gives no conditions, no prerequisites, no alternative suggestions. It is impossible for an agent to decide between gf.agent_budget and gf.payment_status based on this text.

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

All GF Agent Toll toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources