Skip to main content
Glama

Abstraxn Agent Layer

by io.github.sandeep-antier

Social / person profile lookup (pay-per-call)

social.profile_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve person / social-profile identity for a batch of records, paid per call directly from the caller's own wallet via the x402 protocol — no Abstraxn account needed. Supports two modes per record:

  • Fuzzy match: supply first_name and/or last_name plus emails and/or phones.

  • Reverse lookup: supply only emails and/or phones, no name required.

Every record needs a caller-chosen record_id (any string) to correlate it with its match in the response, plus at least one non-empty first_name/last_name, or at least one non-empty entry in emails, or at least one non-empty entry in phones — an empty array counts as not provided. Optional top-level match_condition_fields (e.g. ["linkedin_url"]) restricts results to matches that include ALL of the named fields.

The exact response shape (field names/nesting per match) is passed through unchanged from the upstream provider — read whatever comes back rather than assuming a fixed shape.

Charges ~$0.02 per call — the exact charge for a given call is always whatever the live payment challenge specifies for that request. The first call (no paymentPayload) returns paymentRequired; retry with the same arguments plus paymentPayload to complete payment and get the real result.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordsYesRecords to resolve. Each needs record_id plus at least one non-empty first_name/last_name, emails entry, or phones entry.
paymentPayloadNox402 payment payload from a previous `paymentRequired` challenge. Omit on the first call.
match_condition_fieldsNoOptional filter — only return matches whose result includes ALL of these fields, e.g. ["linkedin_url"].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNo
paymentRequiredNo

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive) by detailing the x402 payment protocol, two operating modes, the requirement to retry with paymentPayload, the dynamic response shape, and the non-trivial field validation rules. No contradictions 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 well-structured with clear paragraphs and front-loaded purpose. However, it is somewhat verbose (e.g., repeats payment details in the first and last paragraphs). It could be slightly tightened without losing clarity, but overall 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?

Given the tool's complexity (payment flow, batch processing, dynamic response), the description covers all major aspects: modes, required fields, payment retry, optional filter, and response shape. It is missing only minor details like error handling or rate limits, but is otherwise complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the two modes (fuzzy match vs reverse lookup), the meaning of empty arrays, the match_condition_fields filter, and the paymentPayload flow. This is critical context that 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 description clearly states the verb 'resolve' and resource 'person / social-profile identity', specifies batch processing, and distinguishes the payment mechanism. The title reinforces the purpose. No sibling tools overlap, so differentiation is implicit.

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 explains when to use (identity resolution from names/emails/phones) and how to handle the two-step payment flow. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but given no similar sibling tools, the guidance is sufficient. It could be more explicit about prerequisites but is clear overall.

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

All Abstraxn Agent Layer 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are broadly distinct by domain (market, network, social, travel, web3), but some overlap exists between market.crypto and network.token_price (both provide token prices), and between network.token_info and web3.lookup's token_metadata action. However, the descriptions clarify the differences well.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a domain.subdomain pattern (e.g., market.crypto, network.gas_info), but the subdomains mix styles: dots (market.crypto), underscores (network.token_info), and plain names (travel.search). Additionally, actions within tools like 'places.lookup' have inconsistent naming (text_search_full vs. solar_building_insights).

Tool Count4/5

With 11 tools covering diverse domains (crypto, network, places, social, travel, web3), the count is reasonable. However, some tools encapsulate many actions (e.g., market.crypto has 6 actions, places.lookup has 12), hinting at a slightly heavy surface, but overall it fits the broad scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows for each domain: crypto market data, network operations (block, gas, transfers, tokens), place search, social profile lookup, travel search, and web3 lookups. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for sending transactions or managing user accounts), but the stated purpose (agent layer for diverse tasks) is mostly fulfilled.

Resources