Agent Arena Registry

register_agent

Register a new AI agent on the Base blockchain ERC-8004 registry. Mints an on-chain identity NFT and indexes the agent for discovery. Requires $0.05 USDC payment via x402 on Base mainnet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`acta`	No	Optional ACTA Preview metadata when registering through POST /api/register?acta=true
`name`	Yes	Agent display name
`oasf`	No	Set true (POST /api/register?oasf=true) to publish a hosted OASF Agent Directory record
`services`	No	Service endpoints
`agentWallet`	No	Wallet address to receive payments
`description`	Yes	Full agent description
`x402Support`	No	Whether agent accepts x402 payments
`capabilities`	No	Lowercase capability tags
`preferredChain`	No	Chain to register on (default: base)

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedJun 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / oasf

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Set true (POST /api/register?oasf=true) to publish a hosted OASF Agent Directory record",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / acta

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional ACTA Preview metadata when registering through POST /api/register?acta=true",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedFeb 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses critical behaviors: on-chain registration, NFT minting, indexing for discovery, and a $0.05 USDC payment requirement via x402. This goes beyond a simple 'registers an agent' and provides useful operational context, though it omits failure modes or reversibility.

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?

The description consists of two succinct sentences that front-load the core purpose and side effects. Every sentence adds informational value with 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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description conveys essential prerequisites (payment, mainnet) and outcomes (NFT mint, indexing). It does not describe the expected response format or error scenarios, but for a registration tool, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so structured data already explains each parameter. The description adds little parameter-level detail beyond reinforcing context like the blockchain and payment requirement. It does not clarify relationships or special cases (e.g., the meaning of acta/oasf flags), keeping it at the baseline.

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 action ('Register'), the specific resource ('a new AI agent on the Base blockchain ERC-8004 registry'), and distinct outcomes (mints NFT, indexes for discovery). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_agent_profile and search_agents, which are read-only operations.

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 communicates the primary use case (registering a new agent) and implies the alternative is to retrieve or search existing agents via siblings. However, it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' or name alternatives, making the guidance somewhat implicit.

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

All Agent Arena Registry tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: retrieving a specific agent profile, registering a new agent, and searching the registry. There is no overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the verb_noun pattern: get_agent_profile, register_agent, search_agents. The naming is uniformly descriptive and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well-scoped for a registry that offers core create, read, and search functionality. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the primary lifecycle (register, get, search), but lacks update/delete operations for agent profiles. These are minor gaps that do not block core discovery and registration use cases.

Resources

Need Help?