Single-connection meta-router indexing 500+ MCP servers & A2A tools with 85% token compression and
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool targets a clearly distinct action: discovery (search), single execution (execute_marketplace_tool), batched execution (execute_workflow_bundle), and account inspection (get_agent_wallet_status). Descriptions explicitly cross-reference WHEN NOT TO USE, so the boundary between the two execute tools (single vs 4-tool bundle) is unambiguous.
All four names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (execute_*, get_*, search_*). The verbs are predictable and the resource suffixes are descriptive, with no style mixing.
Four tools is lean but each covers a distinct role in the broker workflow (discover, execute single, execute bundle, check balance). It is slightly thin—no dedicated listing/top-up tool—but nothing feels redundant or missing for the stated scope.
The surface covers discovery, single and bundled execution, and wallet/balance checking, forming a coherent lifecycle. The only minor gap is the absence of an explicit payment/top-up tool, though the docs route payment through retry with tx_hash or an agd_pass_ key.
Execute any of the 16 native AgentDiet B2A tools by slug or proxy an external marketplace tool URL ($0.001-$0.02 per call). WHEN TO USE: Call to run a single tool discovered via search_x402_mcp_marketplace; use execute_workflow_bundle when you want to run a 4-tool composite bundle in parallel. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for catalog search (use search_x402_mcp_marketplace) or wallet checks (use get_agent_wallet_status). PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Set target_tool to a native slug (e.g. 'distill', 'token-intel', 'sec-intel', 'github-audit') or external https:// URL, and pass its primary input in input_value. Omit agent_id and tx_hash during your 5 free calls. Read-only and idempotent; results are cached for 1 hour (<5ms cache hit). Pricing: the first 5 calls per agent_id are free and failed calls are never charged. After 5 calls, the tool returns a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with a $2 Stripe top-up link and Base/Solana USDC addresses; complete payment, then retry with your agd_pass_ key in agent_id or pass tx_hash. Example: execute_marketplace_tool(target_tool='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_hash | No | Optional on-chain Base Mainnet (0x...) or Solana SPL USDC transaction hash. Omit unless settling an individual call directly on-chain instead of using an agd_pass_ key in agent_id. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identifier or prepaid agd_pass_ session key. Omit during your 5 free trial calls to use an ID automatically derived from your client IP, or pass your agd_pass_ key after topping up. | |
| input_value | Yes | Primary input parameter for the target tool (URL, 0x address, ticker, domain, email, repo, or query). | |
| target_tool | Yes | Native tool slug (e.g. 'distill', 'token-intel', 'sec-intel', 'github-audit') or external https:// endpoint URL. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 5-free-call pricing model, $0.001-$0.02 per call, failed calls never charged, 1-hour result caching (<5ms hits), and the payment-required quote flow with top-up link and retry mechanics. It does not spell out the exact shape of the payment-required response, keeping it just short of a 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded and organized under labeled WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / pricing blocks, so an agent can scan it quickly. It is somewhat long and the agd_pass_ key and free-call details are repeated between the prose and the schema descriptions, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a proxy-execution tool with four parameters and an output schema (so return values need not be described), the description covers usage routing, payment lifecycle, caching, error semantics, and retry path. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine interaction semantics: target_tool accepts either a native slug (with examples) or an https:// URL, input_value carries the target's primary input, and agent_id/tx_hash should be omitted during the free trial and supplied on retry. This meaningfully exceeds what the schema descriptions convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Execute') plus the resource (16 native AgentDiet B2A tools by slug, or a proxied external marketplace tool URL), and immediately differentiates itself from sibling tools. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Contains explicit WHEN TO USE (single tool discovered via search_x402_mcp_marketplace), WHEN NOT TO USE (no catalog search, no wallet checks), and names the alternative for each excluded case plus execute_workflow_bundle for parallel bundles. Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Execute a 4-tool native workflow bundle in parallel in a single call ($0.015-$0.03) and return a unified dossier, saving 3 LLM round-trips. WHEN TO USE: Call for comprehensive multi-source due diligence on a token, company domain, repository, or research topic; use execute_marketplace_tool when you only need a single tool. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for single-endpoint queries or free catalog search. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Select bundle_id first and provide the matching entity identifier (token/0x address, domain, repo, or URL) in target. Omit agent_id and tx_hash during your 5 free calls. Read-only and idempotent; results are cached for 1 hour (<5ms cache hit). Pricing: the first 5 calls per agent_id are free and failed calls are never charged. After 5 calls, the tool returns a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with a $2 Stripe top-up link and Base/Solana USDC addresses; complete payment, then retry with your agd_pass_ key in agent_id or pass tx_hash. Example: execute_workflow_bundle(bundle_id='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | Primary target entity for the bundle (0x contract, token symbol, company domain, GitHub repo, or URL). | |
| tx_hash | No | Optional on-chain Base Mainnet (0x...) or Solana SPL USDC transaction hash. Omit unless settling an individual call directly on-chain instead of using an agd_pass_ key in agent_id. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identifier or prepaid agd_pass_ session key. Omit during your 5 free trial calls to use an ID automatically derived from your client IP, or pass your agd_pass_ key after topping up. | |
| bundle_id | Yes | Composite 4-tool workflow bundle identifier to execute in parallel. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Going well beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld), it discloses pricing tiers, that the first 5 calls per agent_id are free, that failed calls are never charged, that post-trial responses return a payment-required quote rather than a fatal error, the caching window (<5ms cache hit), and the retry mechanism (agd_pass_ key or tx_hash). These are exactly the operational traits an agent cannot infer from structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Dense but well-structured with labeled sections (WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / Pricing) and the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. It is longer than ideal and the pricing detail is verbose, but every sentence carries distinct decision-relevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a paid, cached, multi-tool orchestration endpoint, the description covers selection criteria, parameter interplay, cost, trial limits, failure/payment semantics, and cache behavior; an output schema exists so return values need not be restated. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the PARAMETER INTERACTIONS section adds real orchestration meaning: pick bundle_id first, then supply the matching entity identifier in target, and omit agent_id/tx_hash during the free tier. It stops short of mapping which bundle_id values require which identifier type, which is the remaining ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Execute a 4-tool native workflow bundle in parallel in a single call') plus the concrete outcome ('return a unified dossier'), and explicitly names the sibling it is not ('use execute_marketplace_tool when you only need a single tool'). An agent can distinguish it from execute_marketplace_tool without opening either schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Contains explicit WHEN TO USE (multi-source due diligence on a token, domain, repo, or topic) and WHEN NOT TO USE (single-endpoint queries, free catalog search) sections, and routes to the alternative tool by name. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inspect an agent's account ledger: remaining free trial calls (out of 5), prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, and total LLM tokens saved. WHEN TO USE: Call before a batch of paid tool executions or after completing a Stripe or USDC top-up to confirm your balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to process web content, execute marketplace tools, or submit payments; use the other tools on this server for execution. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Omit agent_id to inspect the default trial account derived from your client IP, or pass your explicit agent_id or agd_pass_ session key to check a specific funded wallet. Free and read-only: never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call. Example: get_agent_wallet_status(agent_id='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional Agent ID or agd_pass_ session key to inspect. Omit to check the default wallet derived from your client IP. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call, and the default wallet is derived from the caller's client IP. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, but the cost/free-trial guarantee is meaningful behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the ledger contents, then structured WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / Example. The labeled sections make it scannable, though the repetition of the read-only guarantee and the worked example add a little bulk.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still names the key fields. With a single optional parameter, no nested objects, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by naming the agd_pass_ session-key form and framing the two modes as an interaction (omit for IP-derived trial account vs. pass explicit agent_id/session key for a funded wallet), which aids selection even though the schema states the omit behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (agent's account ledger) and enumerates exactly what is returned: trial calls out of 5, prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, tokens saved. This clearly separates it from the sibling web-content tools (distill_webpage, extract_structured_data, recon_webpage_skeleton), which operate on webpages rather than wallet state.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit WHEN TO USE (before paid tool batches, after a Stripe or USDC top-up) and WHEN NOT TO USE (not for processing web content, executing marketplace tools, or submitting payments). The exclusion clause routes the agent back to the other server tools for execution, so the alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search 490+ indexed MCP and HTTP 402 (x402) tools by capability keyword and return ranked endpoints with pricing, trust scores, and SLA tiers. WHEN TO USE: Call first to discover which native slug or external endpoint matches your task before calling execute_marketplace_tool. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to execute a tool directly (use execute_marketplace_tool or execute_workflow_bundle). PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Pass capability keywords or a domain in query; omit agent_id and tx_hash (this discovery tool is always free and never consumes a free trial call). Example: search_x402_mcp_marketplace(query='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Capability keywords, category name, or endpoint URL to search across the 490+ tool catalog. | |
| tx_hash | No | Optional on-chain Base Mainnet (0x...) or Solana SPL USDC transaction hash. Omit unless settling an individual call directly on-chain instead of using an agd_pass_ key in agent_id. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identifier or prepaid agd_pass_ session key. Omit during your 5 free trial calls to use an ID automatically derived from your client IP, or pass your agd_pass_ key after topping up. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the tool is always free, never consumes a free-trial call, and does not require agent_id or tx_hash. It stops short of disclosing result limits, pagination, or ranking mechanics, so not a full 5.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the core purpose, then cleanly segmented into WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS. The trailing example is mildly redundant with the schema's own example and repeats the tool name verbatim, which costs a small amount of space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, yet the description still summarizes what comes back (pricing, trust scores, SLA tiers). Combined with the discovery-vs-execution routing and the free/no-trial-consumption note, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by stating a parameter interaction rule — supply keywords/domain in query and omit agent_id and tx_hash for discovery — which is a conditional usage rule not derivable from the individual field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Specific verb (Search), specific resource (490+ indexed MCP and x402 tools), and a concrete outcome (ranked endpoints with pricing, trust scores, SLA tiers). It is clearly distinguishable from execute_marketplace_tool and execute_workflow_bundle 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit WHEN TO USE ('call first to discover which native slug or external endpoint matches your task') and WHEN NOT TO USE ('do not use to execute a tool directly') sections, each naming the correct alternative. This is exactly the routing guidance an agent needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
execute_marketplace_toolexecute_workflow_bundleget_agent_wallet_statussearch_x402_mcp_marketplaceSingle-connection meta-router indexing 500+ MCP servers & A2A tools with 85% token compression an.
One connector for 15,000+ MCP servers plus your team's private MCPs, from any AI client.
One AI endpoint to search and call 22k+ MCP servers; 50+ hosted tools work instantly, no key.
MCP server connecting AI agents to non-custodial staking data across 130+ networks.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.