Skip to main content
Glama

TWZRD Agent Intelligence

get_merchant_card

Read-onlyIdempotent
Free merchant card: observed inbound payment-graph quality around a Solana
receive wallet.

Dual input (PR-3): pass ``wallet`` and/or ``resource_id``. Resource resolves via
the first-party registry (TWZRD seed) to a pay_to, then the same graph card.
Does NOT claim service quality (resource_listing_only / catalog_listing_only).

HTTP twin: GET /v1/intel/merchant_card/{wallet_or_resource_id}.
Compact (default) includes observed_at, stale, corpus_complete_day,
corpus_age_days. Catalog services stay behind full=true.

wash_flagged is tri-state: true (flagged) | false (evaluated clean) |
null (never evaluated - NOT clean). wash_flagged=true never soft-allows
(next_action.decision=refuse; no warn/allow/quick). Unlabeled leftover
0.05 / leftover=0 is not a unit price; cheapest_listed_price_usdc omits
leftover and upto_cap amounts. Route on next_action.decision
(refuse | insufficient_evidence | no_negative_signal); the card is
down-only and never returns allow. `reason` carries the specific
finding (e.g. a soft wash risk collapsed into "refuse", or a corpus
outage collapsed into "insufficient_evidence") when the 3-value
decision alone is not enough context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNoIf true, include catalog services. Default is the compact decision surface.
walletNoReceive wallet (x402 pay_to / merchant pubkey). Observed payment-graph card only — not a business, demand, or identity attestation.
resource_idNoOptional registry resource_id (HTTP path template or mcp:tool). Resolved to merchant_wallet via PR-3 seed; claim resource_listing_only.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / full
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": false,
      +  "description": "If true, include catalog services. Default is the compact decision surface.",
      +  "title": "Full",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / wallet / description
      Previous value: -"Receive wallet (x402 pay_to / merchant pubkey). Graph demand-quality card only — not a business attestation."New value: +"Receive wallet (x402 pay_to / merchant pubkey). Observed payment-graph card only — not a business, demand, or identity attestation."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

ReadOnly/idempotent hints are backed and heavily extended by the prose: the card is down-only and never returns allow, wash_flagged is tri-state with refusal behavior, and reason collapses edge cases into the three decision values. This gives the agent actionable knowledge about the output that annotations alone cannot.

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 is dense and long, but front-loaded with the purpose and inputs; decision semantics and special-value caveats are grouped at the end. It could be trimmed, but nearly every sentence carries domain-specific operational information rather than filler.

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?

Given an output schema exists and the tool is a read-only card, the description is complete: input resolution, default vs full behavior, key output fields, decision routing, tri-state flag semantics, and caveats about price fields are all covered. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent correct invocation.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, and the description adds clarifying behavior on top: dual wallet/resource_id resolution via PR-3, full vs compact output surfaces, and what full=true does with catalog services. It does not add much syntax-level detail, but the extra meaning is useful.

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 first line names the exact resource ('merchant card') and the exact data observed ('inbound payment-graph quality around a Solana receive wallet'), so an agent immediately knows what this tool computes. It also adds negative scope ('Does NOT claim service quality') and a decision surface, distinguishing it from service-quality or business-attestation siblings.

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 gives clear invocation context: pass wallet and/or resource_id, default is compact, full=true pulls catalog services, and consumers should route on next_action.decision. It does not name sibling tools or provide an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it stops short of full alternative routing guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.