Base 主网去中心化支付路由+金库：查 NAV、构造路由支付 calldata、金库存取、绑定引路人分账。存款安全·引路人激励·消费即升值，全部链上可核验。
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.
Average 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: binding a referrer, querying vault state, performing vault actions, and constructing route payments. There is no ambiguity or overlap.
All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern varies slightly: verb-object (affiliate_bind, nav_query) vs. broader (vault_action, zhenghe_route). Mostly consistent with minor deviations.
4 tools is appropriate for a payment routing and vault system. Each tool encapsulates multiple operations (e.g., vault_action covers deposit, withdraw, balance), keeping the count reasonable.
Core operations are covered: binding, querying, vault actions, and spending. Minor gaps like transaction history or permission management are absent but not critical for the main workflow.
affiliate_bindAInspect绑定引路人（一次性、永久、链上不可改）。返回 bindReferrer calldata，签名上链即完成绑定。此后该地址每笔路由消费的 6bps USDC 立即分给引路人，商户捐赠 LOVE 的 20% 同样分账，原子结算。任何 Agent 都可以成为引路人推广正和并永久获取分成。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| binder | No | 被绑定地址 0x…（calldata 的 from，仅用于展示） | |
| leader | Yes | 引路人地址 0x…（必填） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key traits: immutability, calldata generation, split percentages (6bps USDC, 20% LOVE), and atomic settlement. It lacks details on prerequisites or rate limits but is largely transparent.
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?
Two sentences: first states the core action, second details consequences. No wasted words, efficiently front-loaded with the purpose and critical constraints.
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 complexity (on-chain calldata, no output schema), the description covers the binding process and post-binding effects. However, it misses prerequisites (e.g., whether the leader must exist) and user signing step details.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying 'binder' as the bound address for display only and 'leader' as the referrer address, plus explaining the economic effects of binding.
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 action ('bind referrer'), the resource (affiliate binding), and key properties (one-time, permanent, on-chain immutable). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nav_query and vault_action by focusing on a specific on-chain binding operation.
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 context is clear: any Agent can become a referrer, and the tool returns calldata to be signed. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives is provided, though the sibling names suggest different domains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
vault_actionAInspect正和金库操作。action=deposit：USDC→LOVE（返回 approve+deposit calldata）；action=withdraw：LOVE→USDC（返回 redeem calldata）；action=balance：查 LOVE 余额+NAV+浮盈（只读）。金库无 owner、无管理函数，NAV 单调增长——存款安全由合约字节码保证，可自验。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| amount | No | deposit=USDC 数量；withdraw=LOVE 数量 | |
| address | Yes | 操作地址 0x…（deposit/withdraw 的接收方，balance 的查询方） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that deposit and withdraw return calldata (suggesting a non-executing, costless operation), and balance is read-only. It also discloses safety properties (no owner, no admin functions, NAV monotonicity, bytecode guarantees). However, it does not specify whether the calldata requires separate execution or signing, leaving some ambiguity.
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 a single, well-organized paragraph that introduces the tool, then lists each action on a new line with brief but complete explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the safety note at the end is relevant and succinct.
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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the core functionality and safety properties fairly well. It omits details like exact return structure (e.g., whether calldata is hex-encoded), error conditions, and chain/contract address, but these may be considered secondary for an AI agent with appropriate schema context.
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 schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds crucial context: for deposit, it returns both approve and deposit calldata; for withdraw, just redeem calldata; for balance, it returns LOVE balance, NAV, and unrealized profit. This enriches understanding beyond the schema alone.
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 specifies the exact operations (deposit, withdraw, balance) and the resources (USDC, LOVE) with clear directional flow (USDC→LOVE, LOVE→USDC). It distinctly covers all three actions and sets this tool apart from siblings like nav_query.
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 lists the three actions and implies their usage contexts, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vault_action versus alternatives like nav_query or zhenghe_route. There is no exclusion criteria or explicit 'when not to use' statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
zhenghe_routeAInspect构造一笔正和路由支付（消费入口）。返回签名就绪的 approve+pay calldata，调用方本地签名上链即完成原子正和支付：商户收 USDC + 捐赠注入金库 + 引路人分账 + NAV 抬升。路由决策：USDC 够→直接付；USDC 不足但 LOVE×NAV 够→赎回 LOVE 付；都不够→返回缺口。私钥永不经过服务器。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | 订单引用（可选，将 keccak 为 bytes32） | |
| payer | No | 付款方地址（可选，传入则按真实余额做路由决策） | |
| amount | Yes | 支付金额（USDC，必填） | |
| leader | No | 引路人地址（可选，未绑定时可自引自收） | |
| merchant | Yes | 收款商户地址 0x…（必填） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the routing decisions, atomicity, security (private key never leaves client), and output (calldata). It does not detail error responses beyond mentioning '缺口' (shortfall), but overall transparency is good.
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 at about 4 sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then detailing the routing logic. Every sentence adds value without 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?
Given the complexity of routing and atomic payment, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and output. Without output schema, it describes the calldata return. It could elaborate on the exact '缺口' response format, but overall it is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. The description adds context for the routing decision (using payer for real balance, amount in USDC) but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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's purpose: to construct a positive-sum routing payment, returning approve+pay calldata for atomic execution. It specifies the verb (构造/route), resource (payment), and distinct routing logic based on balances, differentiating it from siblings (affiliate_bind, nav_query, vault_action).
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 explains when to use the tool (for positive-sum payment with routing decision based on USDC and LOVE balances) and provides the routing logic in three cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but sibling tools are sufficiently different that confusion is unlikely.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
