Skip to main content
Glama

XDaLa Workflow Builder

by io.github.xgr-network

Quote XGR purchase budget

quote_xgr_purchase
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use only when the user specifies a maximum USDC/USDT payment budget. Call get_xgr_purchase_options first, pass payment_assets[].key, and treat this result as planning only: it creates no order and is not a payment instruction.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payment_assetYesExact payment_assets[].key returned by get_xgr_purchase_options, for example usdc_eth. Do not use the display symbol.
safety_margin_bpsNoConservative planning margin in basis points. Omit to use the default 100 bps.
max_payment_amountYesMaximum amount of the selected payment asset the user authorizes. This is USDC or USDT, not EUR.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesStructured result data returned by the XGR MCP gateway.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the result is 'planning only,' creates no order, and is not a payment instruction. It also specifies a dependency on get_xgr_purchase_options, going beyond what annotations provide.

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 is two sentences, front-loaded with the usage condition, and every sentence adds essential information. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a quote tool with an existing output schema and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the necessary workflow (calling get_xgr_purchase_options first), the planning-only nature, and the condition for use. The presence of an output schema eliminates the need to describe return values.

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% with detailed descriptions. The description reinforces the key parameter semantics by telling the agent to pass payment_assets[].key for payment_asset and referring to the 'maximum USDC/USDT payment budget,' which aligns with max_payment_amount. This adds a small but useful layer beyond the 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 the tool's function: to quote a purchase budget when the user specifies a maximum USDC/USDT payment. It uses a specific verb ('quote') and resource ('XGR purchase budget') and distinguishes it from sibling order-creation tools by noting it is planning-only.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it ('Use only when the user specifies a maximum USDC/USDT payment budget') and gives a required predecessor step ('Call get_xgr_purchase_options first'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for placing actual orders, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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

All XDaLa Workflow Builder 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are many overlapping session-listing tools (list_xdala_sessions, get_recent_xdala_sessions, find_latest_xdala_session, list_xdala_session_ids, get_latest_session_payload) and duplicate validation tools (validate_xdala_bundle is an alias for validate_xgr_multibundle). Descriptions help but boundaries are still unclear.

Naming Consistency4/5

The verb_noun snake_case pattern is consistent across nearly all tools (get_, list_, create_, cancel_, validate_). Minor inconsistencies include the alias validate_xdala_bundle and interchangeable verbs like get_ vs read_ vs resolve_ for similar read operations.

Tool Count1/5

With 95 tools, this is far beyond the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the domain is broad, the sheer number makes the tool surface unwieldy and difficult for an agent to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: handoffs, session queries, transaction exploration, contract reads, validation, gas requests, and purchases. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct workflow editing tools), but overall the surface is remarkably complete.

Resources