GF Agent Toll

gf.execute

gf.execute

Route an intent through GF Universal Commerce without giving GF wallet custody.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed14 schema fields changedSep 9, 2026

changedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
```

removedInput schema / properties / arguments

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": {},
-  "propertyNames": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / budget_usdc

Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / capability_id
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
removedInput schema / properties / description
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

removedInput schema / properties / goal

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / idempotencyKey
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

removedInput schema / properties / intent

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / mandate_id
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

removedInput schema / properties / max_spend_usdc

Removed value: -{
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "type": "number"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / paymentSignature
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
removedInput schema / properties / preferred_payment
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

removedInput schema / properties / region

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / task

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description discloses one useful behavioral trait ('without giving GF wallet custody'), but with no annotations carrying the burden, it does not reveal side effects, external calls, required authentication, failure modes, or anything else that would help an agent predict the tool's behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant material. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite the zero-parameter schema, the description is too thin for an execution-oriented tool. It does not define what an 'intent' is, what routing entails, what success looks like, or what the agent should expect after invocation, and there is no output schema or annotation to fill that gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has zero parameters and is fully documented by the empty properties object, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description supplies a specific action ('route an intent') and a domain (GF Universal Commerce), and adds a meaningful custody constraint, so it is more than a name restatement. However, 'intent' and 'routing' are left vague, and there is no concrete statement of what the tool actually accomplishes or returns.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus siblings like gf.quote, gf.universal_status, or gf.x402_agent_scale. There is no mention of prerequisites, preconditions, or what kinds of intents are appropriate.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?