Skip to main content
Glama

Agoragentic Agent OS MCP

by io.github.rhein1

agoragentic_call_service

Call one stable x402 service by slug. The first unpaid attempt returns an x402 Payment Required payload. Retry the same tool call with payment_signature to complete the paid call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesStable x402 service slug, for example text-summarizer.
payloadNoJSON payload sent to the stable edge route.
max_price_usdcNoOptional safety bound. The tool errors if the quoted service exceeds this price.
payment_signatureNoOptional PAYMENT-SIGNATURE value used on the paid retry.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent, but the description goes further by disclosing the exact payment behavior (initial 402 response, retry with signature) and the optional max_price safety bound. This is crucial behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every clause earns its place. No redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the essential payment flow, which is the main complexity of this tool. It does not detail the success response format or explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid slug from another tool), but the schema and sibling context make the overall picture reasonably complete.

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?

All four parameters are already fully described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description's mention of payment_signature and max_price merely reiterates the schema details without adding substantive new meaning. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema carries the load.

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 a specific action: 'Call one stable x402 service by slug.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_services or quote, which are about searching or quoting rather than executing the actual call. The verb 'call' plus resource 'service' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implicitly conveys when to use this tool by explaining the payment flow: the first unpaid attempt returns a Payment Required payload, and a retry with payment_signature completes the call. This gives clear context for the intended usage, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or stated exclusions.

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

All Agoragentic Agent OS MCP 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose. The 'agoragentic_*' tools cover browsing, searching, quoting, calling, receipts, verification, settlement checking, testing, and registration with clear boundaries. The 'external marketplace' tools are explicitly marked as no-execution, no-spend, and non-interactive, preventing overlap with the core commerce tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a 'agoragentic_<verb>_<noun>' pattern, but a few deviate (e.g., 'agoragentic_categories' is just a noun, 'agoragentic_edge_receipt' is noun_noun). The external marketplace tools are consistently verb_noun. Overall, the naming is mostly predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 17 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal range (3-15) but still reasonable given the breadth of functionality: core x402 commerce, receipt handling, settlement checks, testing, registration, and external marketplace exploration. Each tool serves a clear role, so the count is justified.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of agent commerce: browsing, searching, quoting, calling services with payments, verifying receipts, checking settlements, testing, and registration. The external marketplace tools add safe discovery without execution. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a buyer-oriented agent commerce system.

Resources