Skip to main content
Glama

SNHP — free negotiation math + agent memory

Save agent memory (blind locker)

memory_save

Persistent memory for your agent across sessions — save now, load in any later session.

You encrypt before saving; the store holds only ciphertext (blind custody) and signs a receipt over its hash — it cannot read your memory.

Saving uses your prepaid wallet; a new key's 50¢ starter credit covers your first saves, and loading it back (memory_load) is free. blob_b64 is YOUR ciphertext as base64 — encrypt BEFORE saving; keys never transit, contents are never logged, so a breach leaks only sealed boxes. Charged a thin flat fee ONLY on durable store (empty/oversize/unencodable is uncharged). ttl_seconds is clamped to [60s, 7d] and the effective expires_at is returned. The receipt's content_hash is over YOUR ciphertext, so you can prove what you stored without the store ever seeing plaintext.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyYesYour SNHP API key (a new key's 50c starter credit covers first saves).
blob_b64YesYOUR ciphertext as base64 — encrypt BEFORE saving; the store holds only the sealed box and cannot read it.
ttl_secondsNoHow long to keep it, clamped to [60s, 7 days]; the effective expiry is returned (optional).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNo
codeNo
errorNo
reasonNo
ticketNo
chargedNo
receiptNo
expires_atNo
size_bytesNo
ticket_hashNo
price_millicentsNo

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses encryption before saving, blind custody, receipt, charging details, and ttl clamping. Annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) are consistent; no contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with main purpose, but somewhat lengthy with many technical details. Still efficient; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers security, charging, parameter constraints, and return of effective expiry. Output schema exists so return values not needed. Mostly complete for a storage 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%; description adds context: api_key is from SNHP with starter credit, blob_b64 is ciphertext, ttl_seconds clamped. Provides meaning beyond schema.

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 it saves persistent memory for the agent across sessions, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tool memory_load (loading is free).

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?

Explains when to use (to persist memory), mentions prepaid wallet and starter credit, and that empty/oversize goes uncharged. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context from siblings clarifies.

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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., auctions, negotiation, pricing, matching, memory). However, negotiate/session_advise and negotiate_bundle/session_bundle overlap in functionality, differing only in payment tier, which could cause confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names generally follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case. 'negotiate' is a lone verb without a noun, but overall the convention is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count4/5

15 tools cover a broad domain of negotiation, auctions, pricing, matching, and memory. While slightly on the higher side, each tool serves a clear purpose and the count is reasonable for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key negotiation scenarios (single/multi-issue, free/paid, auctions, clearance pricing, stable matching) and adds memory persistence. Minor gap: no explicit tool for managing user preferences or profiles.