Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

zero-core-budget

by io.github.meltingpixelsai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

register_agent

Register an agent with daily and weekly budget limits, or update them. The agent_id belongs to the wallet that pays for this call: call check_spend, report_spend and get_spending_report from the same wallet.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "daily_limit_usd": "<daily_limit_usd>",
      "weekly_limit_usd": "<weekly_limit_usd>"
    },
    "name": "register_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesYour agent's name. It belongs to the wallet you pay from: only calls paid from that wallet can read or change it
category_limitsNoOptional per-category weekly limits (e.g. {security: 1.0, content: 2.0})
daily_limit_usdYesMaximum daily spending in USD
weekly_limit_usdYesMaximum weekly spending in USD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / agent_id / description
      Previous value: -"Unique agent identifier (e.g. your wallet address or agent name)"New value: +"Your agent's name. It belongs to the wallet you pay from: only calls paid from that wallet can read or change it"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavioral constraint — ownership scoping by paying wallet, with cross-wallet reads/changes blocked. However, it leaves the mutation semantics unstated: whether an 'update' replaces all limits wholesale (all three params are required, implying full overwrite), whether category_limits is merged or replaced, and what the tool returns.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by the one non-obvious constraint. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object parameter needs more: the upsert/overwrite behavior on repeat calls, merge vs. replace for category_limits, and the resulting state are all left to inference. The ownership model is well covered, but the mutation contract is not.

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 agent_id, daily_limit_usd, weekly_limit_usd and the nested category_limits are already documented, and the schema supplies numeric bounds. The description restates the budget concept and the wallet-ownership meaning of agent_id without adding syntax or semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Register an agent') plus the dimensions it configures ('daily and weekly budget limits') and notes the upsert nature ('or update them'). It is clearly distinguishable from the read/report siblings, though the differentiation is implicit rather than stated as a contrast.

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?

Gives concrete operational context: the agent_id is tied to the paying wallet, and check_spend/report_spend/get_spending_report must be called from that same wallet. There are no true alternatives for registration, so the absence of explicit exclusions is a minor gap rather than a real omission.

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

All zero-core-budget 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