Agent Embassy

Rank the Rankers

rank_the_rankers

Idempotent

Skip the sweep: the ranked directory of ranking surfaces — methods, integrity, freshness, our standing — in a signed receipt. Omit surface = full directory. POST the tool inputs as JSON to paid_url with an x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. See https://docs.cdp.coinbase.com/x402 Paid tool — $0.25, USDC on Base or Arbitrum One. Paid URL: https://aemb.pro/v1/directory/rankers.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`surface`	No	Optional surface slug (e.g. 'x402-list', '8004scan', 'glama') to return only that entry. Omit for the full directory
`idempotency_key`	Yes	Idempotency key: 8-128 printable ASCII characters (no spaces), client-generated, one per logical request — a UUID v4 is recommended. Replaying the same key on this tool returns the original receipt — the action is not re-run, and the first request's receipt wins even if you resend different inputs. Published example keys are rejected. Keys are scoped per tool and per payer account: a key never returns another wallet's receipt.
`include_unverified`	No	Include surfaces not yet verified by a live read (listed as unverified, never ranked). Defaults to true

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`how`	Yes	How to pay: POST the tool inputs as JSON to paid_url with an x402 v2 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header
`tool`	Yes	Tool name, e.g. check_url_custom
`asset`	Yes	Settlement asset
`price`	Yes	Exact price, e.g. "$0.25"
`networks`	Yes	EVM CAIP-2 network ids accepted
`paid_url`	Yes	x402-paid HTTPS URL to POST the tool inputs to
`facilitator`	Yes	x402 facilitator
`payment_required`	Yes	Always true: this MCP tool is a payment pointer; the tool itself is monetized via x402.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key / description

Previous value: -"Idempotency key: UUID v4, client-generated, one per logical request. Replaying the same key on this tool returns the original receipt — the action is not re-run, and the first request's receipt wins even if you resend different inputs. Published example keys are rejected. Keys are scoped per tool and per payer account: a key never returns another wallet's receipt."New value: +"Idempotency key: 8-128 printable ASCII characters (no spaces), client-generated, one per logical request — a UUID v4 is recommended. Replaying the same key on this tool returns the original receipt — the action is not re-run, and the first request's receipt wins even if you resend different inputs. Published example keys are rejected. Keys are scoped per tool and per payer account: a key never returns another wallet's receipt."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 23, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / price / description
```
Previous value: -"Exact price, e.g. \"$0.05\""New value: +"Exact price, e.g. \"$0.25\""
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / tool / description
```
Previous value: -"Tool name, e.g. ping"New value: +"Tool name, e.g. check_url_custom"
```
AddedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost none: no statement of side effects, auth or quota requirements, freshness, or pagination. The one behavioral fact offered — that results may be absent for some years — is useful but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no redundant wording, but also no front-loading of the most decision-relevant fact. It is brief without being well-structured — brevity here reflects omission rather than economy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral detail, and it leaves the return shape ('ranked metric bucket'), scope of 'several measured years,' and failure modes unexplained. For a ranking/metric tool with no structured safety or output metadata, this is under-specified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, formatting, or constraint information beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and object — 'Fetch top-ranked conversion-based ROI metric breakdowns' — which is more than a restatement of the name. However, the resource itself is fuzzy ('metric bucket'), and the tool sits among X/Twitter lookup siblings with nothing in the text to distinguish it from them or to explain the ranking basis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling it replaces. The only conditional hint is 'whenever available,' which describes output availability rather than selecting this tool over an alternative.

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

All Agent Embassy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?