Skip to main content
Glama

real_agent_index

The Real-Agent Index: what % of 'AI agent' USDC flow on Base is wash/self-dealing vs. genuine one-way payments. The honest benchmark.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as data source, update frequency, or side effects (though it is clearly read-only).

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 a single sentence, but the second phrase 'The honest benchmark' adds slight redundancy. Still concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details on the output format (e.g., numeric percentage range) or how to interpret the result.

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?

There are no parameters, so the description does not need to add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 4 applies.

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 tool's purpose: measuring the percentage of AI agent USDC flow on Base that is wash/self-dealing vs. genuine. It is distinct from sibling tools like agent_pulse or counterparty_risk.

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 usage (when you need this specific metric) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have distinct purposes: agent_pulse for active agent counts, counterparty_risk for wallet risk scores, screen_wallet for sybil detection, etc. However, counterparty_risk and screen_wallet both analyze wallets, causing slight overlap that descriptions mitigate.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but they mix patterns: verb_noun (screen_wallet), noun_noun (index_stats), and compound nouns (real_agent_index). No consistent verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count5/5

6 tools is a well-scoped set for an analytics server covering agents, wallet risk, and settlement data without being over or under.

Completeness4/5

Covers core aspects: macro metrics, per-wallet analysis, and settlement tapes. Missing a tool to list all known agents, but overall coverage is solid for transparency on AI agent activity.

Resources