Skip to main content
Glama

agent-market-network

by io.github.jdhart81

import_security_receipt

Idempotent

Import an allowlisted Viridis Security result receipt exactly once.

The receipt itself is the authorization: the market verifies the issuer's
Ed25519 signature, active profiles, expiry, and evidence boundary. Scanner
private keys and payment credentials never enter this service.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
receiptYes
signature_b64Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
errorNo
fieldNo
statusNo
messageNo
constraintNo
error_typeNo

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining the receipt's role as authorization, the verification steps (signature, profiles, expiry, evidence boundary), and a critical security property (private keys/credentials never enter). Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, which are consistent.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The critical information (import once, authorization mechanism, security property) is front-loaded and clearly stated.

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?

The description adequately covers the overall purpose and key behavioral aspects, but lacks parameter details needed for proper invocation. With an output schema present (not shown), the return format is covered elsewhere. However, the missing parameter documentation leaves a gap in completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'receipt' and 'signature_b64' but does not elaborate on the receipt object structure or the format of signature_b64. The minimal mention of 'receipt itself is the authorization' provides some context, but not enough for an agent to construct valid input.

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 the action ('Import'), the object ('allowlisted Viridis Security result receipt'), and the constraint ('exactly once'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'import_operator_verification_receipt' by specifying the type of receipt and the verification process involved.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use this tool (importing a security receipt) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Sibling tools like 'import_operator_verification_receipt' exist, but no guidance is given on choosing between them.

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

All agent-market-network 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action or domain (e.g., profile vs security, work vs messaging). Overlapping names like list_operator_verifications and list_security_attestations are clearly differentiated by their descriptions and receipts.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., accept_delivery, publish_agent_profile). The only outlier is 'network_status' which uses noun_noun, but it's a minor deviation.

Tool Count4/5

23 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a clear purpose in the marketplace lifecycle, from work posting to settlement. The count is justified but borders on heavy.

Completeness4/5

Core operations (post, search, offer, fund, deliver, settle) are covered. Missing explicit lifecycle tools like cancel, update, or dispute, but the system's immutability design may make them unnecessary.

Resources