Skip to main content
Glama

Nevermined Catalog

Quote a service call

quote_service

Price ONE call to a catalog service WITHOUT paying it: it charges nothing, signs nothing and reserves no budget. Pass exactly what you would pass to pay_service (the same slug, path, method, search, headers, body and delegationId): the Router sends that request to the service unpaid, reads the price it asks for, and returns the rail (protocol), the network and merchant amount (settlement) and the fee-inclusive total (fee.capChargedCents, whole cents rounded up; fee.capChargedMicros exact, in 1/10,000 of a cent). Unlike the quote on a get_service endpoint (the last merchant price the catalog observed, routing fee excluded), this is priced live for your exact request and includes the fee. Because the request really reaches the service, a service that does not charge for it performs it, so take care quoting a method with side effects; and a quote spends the same per-service rate limit as a payment, so quote once per decision rather than polling. It prices the delegation pay_service would charge (optionSet: "delegation", naming its delegationId), or, with no delegation set up, what a personal crypto delegation would select (optionSet: "deployment"); in that case nextTool is setup_delegation: set one up and quote again before paying, since the delegation you create can select a different rail and price. It checks neither your remaining budget nor your wallet balance (see get_budget and wallet_balance). Next step (nextTool: "pay_service"): if fee.capChargedCents fits what you planned to spend, call pay_service with the same arguments, the quoted delegationId, and maxTotalCents set to that figure as a number, so a price rise between the quote and the call is refused instead of paid (the ceiling is whole cents, so a rise within the same cent is still paid). paymentRequired: false means the service did not ask for payment for this request; upstreamStatus is its answer, and a non-2xx usually means the path, method or body is wrong. The service response itself is never returned. Outcomes, all charging nothing: {"payable":false}, service_not_found, catalog_unavailable and delegation_lookup_failed as in pay_service; quote_unavailable (no quote can be made here and retrying will not change that, so bound the price with pay_service maxTotalCents instead); quote_failed (the Router refused to price the call, or did not answer; see code, message and retryable); credential_refused (re-authorize). Requires your Nevermined API key on the Authorization header.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoThe request payload you would send; some services price by it.
pathNoThe same `path` you would pass to pay_service: read `get_service`'s `requestShape.endpoints[].payServiceArgs.path` and replace every `pathParams` placeholder. Put query parameters in `search`.
slugYesThe service slug to quote.
methodNoHTTP method. Omit to use the method the catalog records for the endpoint matching `path` (POST when it records none), exactly as pay_service does.
searchNoQuery string without ?, for a slug-routed GET (e.g. flight_iata=AA217).
headersNoThe extra headers you would send to the vendor.
delegationIdNoThe delegation you would pay with, when you authenticate with an API key; defaults to the one pay_service would use. A card or organization-wallet delegation can select a different rail, and so a different price. An OAuth-connected caller is always quoted for the grant it approved, so a value here does not choose the delegation; the result names the one priced.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the request really reaches the service (so side-effecting methods execute), that a quote consumes the same per-service rate limit as a payment, that it checks neither budget nor wallet balance, and that the Nevermined API key must be on the Authorization header. It also enumerates every failure outcome (`quote_unavailable`, `quote_failed`, `credential_refused`, `service_not_found`, `catalog_unavailable`, `delegation_lookup_failed`) with retryability semantics.

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 core purpose and the no-charge guarantee are front-loaded in the first sentence, and most of the dense remainder (rate-limit warning, delegation semantics, error outcomes, maxTotalCents ceiling) earns its place for a tool this intricate. It loses a point for being a single unscannable wall of text with no line breaks or grouping, when the error-outcome list in particular would read far better as a list.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description takes on the return contract itself, naming `protocol`, `settlement`, `fee.capChargedCents`/`capChargedMicros`, `paymentRequired`, `upstreamStatus`, `nextTool` and the error codes. Combined with the auth requirement, the no-side-effect caveats and the pay_service handoff, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond it: it tells the agent to pass exactly what pay_service would receive, explains that `delegationId` selects the priced delegation for API-key callers while OAuth callers are always quoted for the approved grant, and that the result names the delegation actually priced. That is value the schema alone does not convey.

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 first sentence states a precise verb+resource+scope: price ONE service call without paying it, and immediately enumerates what it does not do (charges nothing, signs nothing, reserves no budget). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the `quote` field on a get_service endpoint (stale last-observed price, fee excluded) and from pay_service, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names the alternatives and the exact conditions that select them: use this for a live fee-inclusive price, use get_service's `quote` for the last observed price, fall back to pay_service `maxTotalCents` when `quote_unavailable`. It also gives when-not guidance (do not poll, the quote spends the same rate limit as a payment; take care quoting methods with side effects) and the concrete next step including argument mapping to pay_service.

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.

Resources