Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Utility Suite (x402)

by io.github.vanakenj45
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Free sample of any paid tool

free_sample
Read-onlyIdempotent

Free, no payment needed. Returns a paid tool's real, live answer to its documented example input (refreshed every 5 minutes to 6 hours depending on the tool), the price of a call with your own input, and where to send it. With no tool, lists every paid tool with the URL of its sample. Use it to check a tool's output format and quality before paying, or to test an integration. Also answers GET, e.g. /api/v1/samples?tool=token_risk_check. Rate-limited per client.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
viaNoOptional: the tool whose next_calls suggested this call (filled in for you).
toolNoThe paid tool to sample, by name or path, e.g. "token_risk_check" or "email-verify". Leave out to list every tool with its sample.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / via
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the tool whose next_calls suggested this call (filled in for you).",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing sample freshness (refreshed every 5 minutes to 6 hours depending on the tool), a per-client rate limit, that pricing and payment routing are included, and that it also answers GET. These are exactly the operational traits annotations cannot convey, and they do not conflict with readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 the essential behavior, then the alternate listing mode, then usage. The GET URL example is the only arguably extraneous element, though it is useful for integration testing. Overall tight for the amount of behavior it must convey.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: it enumerates what comes back (the sample answer, the price of a call with your input, where to send it, or a list of tools with sample URLs). Combined with refresh cadence and rate limits, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: omitting `tool` switches the tool into a full listing mode with sample URLs, which the schema only implies via optionality. `via` is left to the schema, which already explains it is auto-filled.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns a paid tool's live sample answer to its documented example input, plus pricing and payment destination. It also declares the alternate no-argument behavior (list every paid tool with its sample URL), which cleanly separates it from every paid sibling it samples.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use cases: checking output format and quality before paying, or testing an integration. It also explains the no-`tool` listing mode. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g. for production/real work, where you should pay), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

All Agent Utility Suite (x402) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources