Zero Network MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, such as API reference, conversion, cost estimation, and SDK documentation, but there is some overlap between 'zero_implementation_guide', 'zero_mcp_payments', and 'zero_x402_integration', which all cover payment integration aspects and could cause mild confusion. The descriptions help differentiate them, but boundaries are not perfectly clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'zero_' prefix with descriptive snake_case suffixes, such as 'zero_api_reference', 'zero_convert', and 'zero_estimate_cost'. This pattern is maintained throughout all 14 tools, making them predictable and easy to identify.
Tool Count4/5
With 14 tools, the count is reasonable for a server focused on Zero Network documentation, integration, and utilities. It's slightly on the higher side but well-scoped for the domain, covering various aspects like APIs, SDKs, security, and pricing without feeling overly bloated.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the Zero Network domain, including API references, SDK documentation (JavaScript and Python), implementation guides, security models, transaction details, and utility tools like conversion and cost estimation. There are no obvious gaps, and it supports a full lifecycle from learning to integration and operation.
Average 3.4/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does at a basic level, without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the conversion entails (e.g., real-time rates, fixed values). This leaves significant gaps for a tool performing financial conversions.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though it lacks depth that might be needed for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (currency/token conversion), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation but lacks details on conversion logic, error handling, or integration context that would make it more complete for an agent.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by explaining the 'direction' parameter with specific enum-like values (usd_to_z, z_to_usd, etc.), which clarifies the conversion options beyond the schema's generic string type. However, it doesn't provide details on 'amount' (e.g., decimal precision, units) or contextual info like conversion rates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: converting between USD, Z tokens, and units. It specifies the verb 'convert' and the resources involved. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zero_pricing_calculator or zero_estimate_cost, which might have overlapping functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between this and other conversion or calculation tools in the server.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool estimates cost but doesn't describe how the estimation works, what assumptions are made, whether it's a read-only operation, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.
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 appropriately concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first followed by parameter details. There's no wasted text, and the structure is clear. However, the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly, and the overall brevity might sacrifice completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and output interpretation. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more guidance on when and how to use the tool would improve completeness.
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?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'num_transactions' is the 'Number of transactions to estimate for' and 'avg_amount_z' is the 'Average transaction amount in Z (default 0.10 Z)', which provides basic context. However, with 0% schema description coverage, this doesn't fully compensate for the lack of detailed parameter documentation, such as units, ranges, or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Estimate the cost of operating on Zero Network.' It specifies the verb ('Estimate') and resource ('cost of operating on Zero Network'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'zero_pricing_calculator' or 'zero_network_parameters', which might have overlapping or related functionality.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'zero_pricing_calculator' and 'zero_network_parameters', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred. The only implied usage is for cost estimation, but no context or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the calculation function without mentioning permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations in a clear 'Args:' section. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the lack of schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 simple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., calculation method, assumptions) to be fully adequate.
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 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'price_per_call_z' as 'Price per API/tool call in Z' and 'daily_calls' as 'Expected number of calls per day'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles, though it doesn't detail units or constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Calculate expected revenue for a Zero-gated service.' It specifies the verb ('calculate') and resource ('expected revenue'), and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'zero_estimate_cost', the focus on revenue calculation for a specific service type provides reasonable clarity.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'zero_estimate_cost', leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Get JavaScript SDK documentation' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, network calls, or what format the documentation returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient disclosure of how the tool behaves.
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 appropriately concise with a single sentence listing key documentation areas. It's front-loaded with the main purpose ('Get JavaScript SDK documentation') followed by specific components. While efficient, it could be slightly more structured by separating installation from usage topics, but overall it avoids unnecessary verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the documentation scope but lacks context about the tool's behavior, output format, or relationship to siblings. With no annotations and multiple similar tools, more guidance would help the agent understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since none exist, and it appropriately focuses on what the tool provides rather than parameter details. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get JavaScript SDK documentation' with specific components listed (installation, wallet creation, sending Z, environment variables). It distinguishes from siblings like zero_python_sdk by specifying JavaScript, but doesn't fully differentiate from zero_api_reference or zero_implementation_guide which might overlap in documentation scope.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like zero_python_sdk, zero_api_reference, and zero_implementation_guide, there's no indication of when JavaScript SDK documentation is needed versus Python SDK, API references, or general implementation guides. The description simply states what it does without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this returns documentation, code examples, configuration details, or something else. It mentions specific technologies (Python/JS) but doesn't clarify the format or scope of the returned information. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 a single, efficient sentence that packs substantial information: the action ('Get'), the subject ('x402 HTTP payment protocol integration guide'), and three specific components. There's no wasted language, though it could potentially be more structured for readability. Every element serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and the description covers the core purpose, it's minimally complete. However, with no annotations and siblings that might overlap, the description could better clarify what exactly is returned (documentation vs. code vs. configuration) and how this differs from related tools. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but more behavioral context would be helpful.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema already indicates no inputs are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get x402 HTTP payment protocol integration guide' with specific components mentioned (server middleware, client auto-pay, 402 response format). It distinguishes from siblings like zero_api_reference or zero_implementation_guide by focusing specifically on integration aspects of the 402 protocol. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all possible siblings.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like zero_implementation_guide, zero_javascript_sdk, and zero_python_sdk that might overlap, there's no indication of when this integration guide is appropriate versus those other resources. The description simply states what the tool provides without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' suggests a read operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data versus documentation text, or has any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: the core purpose ('Get Python SDK documentation') is stated first, followed by a dash-separated list of content areas. Every element earns its place, with no wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete for its purpose. However, with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, it could better address when to use this versus alternatives and provide more behavioral context about what 'Get' actually means operationally.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It does provide context about what documentation content is available, which adds value beyond the empty schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools with complete schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get Python SDK documentation' followed by specific content areas (installation, wallet creation, sending Z, bridge operations, environment variables). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('Python SDK documentation'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zero_javascript_sdk' or 'zero_api_reference'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools including 'zero_javascript_sdk', 'zero_api_reference', and 'zero_implementation_guide', there's no indication of when this Python-specific documentation tool is appropriate versus other documentation or SDK tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s]' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, response format, or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that might involve sensitive security data.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists key components without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Get') and directly enumerates the security model aspects, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations are provided, the description is minimally adequate. It specifies what security information is retrieved, but lacks details on behavioral traits like access requirements or output structure, which could be important for a security-related tool.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by specifying the content retrieved (e.g., attack mitigations, Trinity Validators), which helps the agent understand the output semantics beyond what the empty schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Zero security model'), listing key components like attack mitigations and vault contract security. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zero_validator_info' or 'zero_overview', which might overlap in security-related content.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists what the tool retrieves but offers no context on prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'zero_validator_info' or 'zero_overview', leaving the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format entails. The description lacks critical behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that lists key content areas without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses a dash to enumerate specifics, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and a tool that likely returns structured data, it doesn't explain output behavior or usage context, leaving gaps in overall understanding.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, the baseline is high as there's nothing to compensate for, making it adequate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource as 'validator documentation' with enumerated content areas (hardware requirements, staking, trust scoring, slashing rules, economics). It distinguishes itself from siblings like zero_api_reference or zero_network_parameters by focusing on validator-specific documentation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for validator-related queries, it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like zero_security_model or zero_transaction_format, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get[s]' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output entails (though an output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is minimal disclosure.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool provides, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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 the tool's complexity (simple retrieval with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough for its purpose. It specifies what formats and primitives are retrieved, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it doesn't. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it appropriately avoids redundant information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Get the Zero transaction wire format (136 bytes), account state format (48 bytes), and cryptographic primitives.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resources (formats and primitives). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like zero_api_reference or zero_implementation_guide, which might also provide format information, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like zero_api_reference and zero_implementation_guide that might overlap, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. It's a basic statement of function without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' parameters, implying a read-only operation, but does not clarify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, data freshness, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get all Zero Network parameters') and follows with specific examples. Every word contributes to clarity without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, output schema provided), the description is largely complete. It specifies what data is retrieved, though it could improve by mentioning the output format or linking to the output schema. With annotations absent, more behavioral details would enhance completeness, but the core purpose is adequately covered.
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 tool has zero parameters, with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by listing examples of what parameters are retrieved (e.g., fees, limits, staking), which helps users understand the output scope beyond the generic 'get parameters' statement.
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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all Zero Network parameters'), listing concrete examples like fees, limits, staking, and slashing. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zero_validator_info or zero_transaction_format by focusing on network-wide parameters rather than validator-specific or transaction-specific data.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implicitly suggests usage for retrieving network parameters, it does not specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference sibling tools like zero_api_reference or zero_overview that might overlap in purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states what the tool returns (API reference with 8 endpoints) but lacks behavioral details like response format, data freshness, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is functional but minimal on behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Get the Zero Network API reference') and provides specific details (8 gRPC endpoints listed). There is zero wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the content (API reference with 8 endpoints) without needing to explain return values due to the output schema. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's output. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.
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 specific action ('Get') and resource ('Zero Network API reference'), listing all 8 gRPC endpoints by name. It distinguishes itself from siblings like zero_overview or zero_network_parameters by focusing on API endpoints rather than general information or parameters.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing API endpoint details, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like zero_implementation_guide or zero_javascript_sdk. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool provides a 'step-by-step implementation guide,' suggesting it's informational and non-destructive, but lacks details on response format, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. While it covers the core behavior, it misses operational specifics that would aid an agent in proper invocation.
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?
The description is highly concise and front-loaded, packing essential information into a single sentence. It lists key use cases without redundancy, making every word count. The structure efficiently communicates the tool's scope without unnecessary elaboration, aligning well with best practices for tool descriptions.
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 the tool's complexity (informational guide with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what the tool delivers (implementation guidance for Zero payments) and outlines relevant contexts. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output format or any prerequisites, though the output schema mitigates some of this need.
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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description does not need to compensate for any gaps, as the schema fully defines the input structure (an empty object). This meets the baseline for a parameterless tool, though it does not add semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get step-by-step implementation guide') and resources ('Zero payments'), listing concrete use cases like API providers, MCP servers, and website paywalls. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings like zero_api_reference or zero_overview by focusing on implementation guidance rather than reference documentation or high-level overviews.
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 implicitly provides usage context by specifying the target scenarios (e.g., API providers, MCP servers, website paywalls), which helps users understand when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like zero_javascript_sdk or zero_python_sdk for specific SDK integrations, nor does it provide exclusion criteria, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool provides (a guide on payment integration), but does not disclose traits like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds basic context but lacks detailed behavioral information.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key purpose ('Get MCP server payment integration guide') and elaborates with specific details ('how to charge AI agents per tool call, payment flow, spending limits'). Every phrase adds value without 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 the tool's complexity (informational guide with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the guide's content scope, but could be more detailed about behavioral aspects like response format or usage prerequisites, though the output schema may compensate for this.
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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids discussing parameters. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description does not contradict this.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get', 'charge') and resources ('MCP server payment integration guide', 'AI agents', 'tool call', 'payment flow', 'spending limits'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like zero_pricing_calculator or zero_overview by focusing on integration guidance rather than pricing calculations or general overviews.
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 usage context for implementing payment systems in MCP servers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like zero_pricing_calculator for cost estimates or zero_implementation_guide for general implementation. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates this is a read-only informational tool ('Get a comprehensive overview'), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description adds basic context but lacks depth for behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get a comprehensive overview') and lists the scope without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 the tool's complexity (simple informational with 0 parameters), schema coverage is high, and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough for its purpose. It explains what the tool does without needing to detail parameters or return values, though it could benefit from more behavioral context given the lack of annotations.
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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter semantics, but with no parameters, this is acceptable, and it provides context about what information is retrieved, justifying a baseline score above 3.
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's purpose with specific verbs ('Get a comprehensive overview') and resource ('Zero Network'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on general information rather than specific aspects like API references, pricing, or technical details covered by other tools.
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 usage context by mentioning 'what it is, how it works, key facts, and links,' suggesting it's for learning about the Zero Network. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like zero_api_reference or zero_implementation_guide, though the focus on 'overview' provides clear differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zzero-net/mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zzero-net/mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zzero-net/mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Zzero-net/mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Zzero-net/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server