Skip to main content
Glama

SNHP — free negotiation math + agent memory

Store catalog & wallet balance

store_catalog
Read-only

See what's on the shelf — free, no key needed: prices, predicates, receipt scheme, and your balance.

THE STORE: one counter, one prepaid wallet, many slots. One read covers the whole shelf — the commodity slots, the blind locker (agent memory), and the paid receipted-session SKU (folds in what nextmove_catalog used to report separately).

Every commodity slot settles ON DELIVERY: the wallet is debited only when a machine-checkable predicate passes — a failed fetch is never charged, because here you cannot pay for nothing. Each receipt names the backend that served and its EXACT wholesale cost (passthrough, no per-call markup); the counter's cut is a published fee on wallet top-ups, not on the calls — 5% + a fixed 30¢ per transaction (the 30¢ is the card rail's own per-transaction toll, passed through).

Every new key gets a one-time 50¢ starter credit — unconditional, no card — enough to taste the shelf before funding it. Don't see the capability you need? store_request logs it; unmet demand decides what gets stocked next. Returns the money unit (millicents, 1000 per cent), per-slot {tier, max_price_millicents, predicate_id, request_doc, serving-backend ids}, the anchor SKUs, the paid_session card, and the two pricing facts. Never returns key material.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysNo
unitNo
errorNo
slotsNo
admissionNo
counter_feeNo
paid_sessionNo
starter_creditNo
counter_fee_pctNo
request_privacyNo
millicents_per_centNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint: true) by detailing the charging model (pay only on delivery, no per-call markup), fee structure, starter credit, and that it never returns key material. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is detailed and informative, but slightly verbose. It front-loads the key purpose and then explains the store model. Every sentence adds value, but some could be consolidated for brevity.

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?

Given no parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description fully explains the returned information (money unit, per-slot details, pricing facts) and the context (store model, fee structure). It is complete for agent understanding.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what is returned but no parameter definitions are needed since schema coverage is 100%.

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 the tool's purpose: 'See what's on the shelf — free, no key needed: prices, predicates, receipt scheme, and your balance.' It uses a specific verb ('see') and resource ('shelf'), and distinguishes itself by noting it never returns key material and covers the whole shelf in one read.

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 provides some guidance by suggesting 'store_request logs it' when a needed capability is missing, hinting at an alternative. However, it does not explicitly contrast with all sibling tools like auction_bid or negotiate, leaving room for ambiguity.

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.