Agent Zero — ERC-8004 Agent Intelligence
Server Details
Free read-only ERC-8004 agent-intel tools: coverage, leaderboards, agent vetting, payment graph
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: individual agent details, aggregate statistics, ranked leaderboards, and network graph preview. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix plus descriptive noun pattern (get_agent_summary, get_coverage_stats, get_leaderboards, get_network_teaser), making the pattern predictable.
Four tools cover the main aspects of the domain (individual, aggregate, rankings, network). Slightly minimal but still appropriate for a focused intelligence server.
The set covers the primary queries an agent would need: per-agent info, market stats, top agents, and network connections. Missing features like search or historical data are understandable for a free tier.
Available Tools
4 toolsget_agent_summaryAInspect
Objective, counts-only signals for one ERC-8004 agent.
Args:
chain: one of "base", "ethereum", "bnb".
agent_id: the numeric ERC-8004 agent id.
Returns reachability, TLS validity, x402 support, payments-received (boolean only),
MCP tool count, OpenAPI method count, well-known presence, owner-named (boolean), and
a neutral status label (Live & monetized / Live, no payments / Stub or unreachable).
No owner identity string and no payment amounts — those are paid. Returns an `error`
field if the agent is not indexed. Use this to vet a counterparty agent before
transacting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details all output fields (reachability, TLS validity, etc.) and error behavior. It implies read-only and neutral status labels. However, it could more explicitly state that the tool is non-destructive or read-only, though the 'objective, counts-only' language strongly suggests it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear separation of purpose, arguments, and return values. It is concise but provides all necessary information. Slight improvement could be made by using bullet points instead of a paragraph for the return fields, but it remains effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has two simple parameters and no output schema, the description is comprehensive. It lists all return fields, explains the status label format, and mentions the error case. It also clarifies what the tool does not provide (paid info), which prevents misunderstandings. The context is fully sufficient for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides types (string, integer) with no enums or descriptions. The description adds critical context: chain values ('base', 'ethereum', 'bnb') and that agent_id is a 'numeric ERC-8004 agent id.' This significantly aids correct invocation beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it provides 'Objective, counts-only signals for one ERC-8004 agent,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a single agent and explicitly mentions its use case for vetting counterparties before transacting.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit context: 'Use this to vet a counterparty agent before transacting.' It also clarifies what the tool returns and what it intentionally omits (no payment amounts, no owner identity). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_coverage_statsAInspect
Live coverage of the ERC-8004 agent economy across Base, Ethereum and BNB Chain.
Returns counts only: how many agents are indexed, how many expose a live MCP server /
OpenAPI / well-known card, total MCP tools and OpenAPI methods observed, contracts
verified, EOAs and owners identified, plus a per-chain breakdown. No names, addresses,
or handles. Use this to size the market and see where capability density is growing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool returns only counts (no names, addresses, or handles) and provides a per-chain breakdown, setting clear expectations about the output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary followed by details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description comprehensively explains the return values and their limitations. It is complete for a zero-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains, which is helpful given no output schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool provides live coverage statistics of the ERC-8004 agent economy across three chains, with specific counts. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing it returns only aggregated counts, not names or addresses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly indicates when to use: to size the market and see where capability density is growing. It implicitly advises against using when detailed identifiers are needed, providing good usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_leaderboardsAInspect
Top ERC-8004 agents by live capability, plus the most recently indexed.
Three ranked lists — top by live MCP tool count, top by OpenAPI method count, and
most-recently indexed — each with agent_id, chain, public name, a shareable detail
URL, and the relevant count. Names and counts only: no owner wallets, handles, or
endpoint URLs. Use this to find the most capable / most active agents to integrate or
watch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses output fields (agent_id, chain, public name, shareable URL, count) and explicitly states what is NOT included. It mentions three lists, adding behavioral context. No side effects or auth needs are mentioned but for a read-only tool this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with efficient sentences. It front-loads the purpose and then details the three lists. Could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but overall clear and not verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers output content and exclusions, but lacks details like sorting order, pagination, data freshness, or definition of 'recently indexed'. Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more complete to fully set expectations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so per guidelines baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond schema, but none are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool returns top ERC-8004 agents by live capability and most recently indexed, specifying three ranked lists. It differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly stating what is included and excluded (names and counts only, no owner wallets etc.), making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage context: use to find most capable/active agents to integrate or watch. It sets expectations by listing what the output contains and explicitly what it omits. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use or compare directly with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!