PayQL

Query a subgraph (paid)

query_subgraph

Execute a GraphQL query against a subgraph on The Graph, pay per query in USDC via x402, and receive data with a payment receipt.

Instructions

Run a GraphQL query against a subgraph on The Graph, paying per query in USDC over x402 — gasless and keyless. Returns the data plus a payment receipt (tx hash + amount). Respects the per-query spend cap and returns a fund-wallet message if balance is insufficient.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subgraph_id": "<subgraph_id>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "query_subgraph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`subgraph_id`	Yes	Subgraph ID (from search_subgraphs)
`query`	Yes	GraphQL query
`variables`	No	Optional GraphQL variables

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses payment via x402, returns data plus receipt, respects spend cap, and returns fund-wallet message on insufficient balance. This is good transparency for a paid tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and key details. No redundancy or waste.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description covers return values (data plus payment receipt). It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's role among siblings. Could be slightly improved by noting that the receipt includes tx hash and amount.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds payment context but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. The subgraph_id description references search_subgraphs, which is helpful.

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 description clearly states the tool runs a GraphQL query against a subgraph on The Graph with payment. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_subgraphs and get_subgraph_schema by specifying the action (query vs search/schema) and the payment mechanism.

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?

The description implies when to use (for paid queries against subgraphs) and mentions conditions like spend cap and balance insufficient behavior. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, e.g., for schema retrieval use get_subgraph_schema.

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

Deploy Server