Skip to main content
Glama

Concierge Intel

by xyz.conc-exe
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

intel_meteora

intel-meteora — $0.10 USDC/USDG/USDT x402 (or TCX credits). POST https://conc-exe.xyz/api/concierge-intel-meteora. Default body: {"sortByApy":true,"limit":8}. Unpaid calls return live PAYMENT-REQUIRED accepts (Solana/Base/Arbitrum USDC · Robinhood USDG · BNB USDT/USDC Permit2).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoJSON POST body for the intel/security route
agentIdNoOptional Concierge agent id (agt_…)
creditsWalletNoSolana wallet for TCX prepaid credits (x-tcx-credits-wallet)
paymentSignatureNoBase64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE after x402 settlement. Omit to receive a structured payment challenge (or settle via creditsWallet / SOON holder headers).
soonHolderWalletNoSolana wallet for SOON/TCX holder free tier (X-Soon-Holder-Wallet)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Concierge agent id (agt_…)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / description
      Previous value: -"JSON POST body"New value: +"JSON POST body for the intel/security route"
    • addedInput schema / properties / creditsWallet
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Solana wallet for TCX prepaid credits (x-tcx-credits-wallet)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / paymentSignature / description
      Previous value: -"Base64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header after x402 settlement"New value: +"Base64 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE after x402 settlement. Omit to receive a structured payment challenge (or settle via creditsWallet / SOON holder headers)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / soonHolderWallet
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Solana wallet for SOON/TCX holder free tier (X-Soon-Holder-Wallet)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description transparently reveals that unpaid calls return a structured payment challenge, lists supported payment methods (USDC, USDG, credits, holder wallet), and includes header hints via parameter descriptions. This goes beyond basic annotation-level transparency and clarifies the payment flow.

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?

The description packs endpoint, cost, default body, and payment behavior into a single, dense but compact sentence. It is not overly verbose and stays focused, though the payment details make it slightly cluttered.

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?

The description includes critical integration details (endpoint, payment challenge, accepted currencies) but omits what the tool actually returns and when to invoke it. Without an output schema or explicit purpose, an agent lacks enough context to correctly select and use the tool.

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?

All five parameters have descriptions, including conditional behavior for paymentSignature and payment-related purposes for creditsWallet and soonHolderWallet. However, the body parameter's description is generic ('JSON POST body for the intel/security route') and does not explain its fields beyond the default value, leaving ambiguity about the request payload.

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 mentions the tool's name and default body with APY sorting, hinting at Meteora yield intelligence, but it never explicitly states what the tool returns or its primary function. The focus is on payment mechanics and the HTTP endpoint rather than a clear verb-object statement of purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling intel_* tools. There is no mention of scenarios, comparisons, or exclusions; the description only covers the endpoint and payment process.

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

All Concierge Intel toolsInspect
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