Skip to main content
Glama
alexar76

AIMarket

by alexar76
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

market_invoke

Invoke capabilities discovered through market search, returning signed receipts. Uses free trials or paid access via API key, payment channel, or x402.

Instructions

Invoke a capability found via market_search. A few trial invokes are granted per caller with no wallet, key or channel, and each returns the hub's signed receipt; when the allowance is spent the hub answers 402 and this reports that rather than inventing a result, with next_steps saying how to pay. Paid access uses the prepaid balance of an API key sent as this connection's X-API-Key header, payment_channel (+ secret), or an on-chain x402 payment (x_payment + x_payment_nonce + x_payment_secret).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputNoInput object for the capability; {} when it takes none.
x_paymentNox402 seller-direct payment: the hash of the USDC transfer you broadcast for the 402's invoice (see next_steps).
product_idYesThe product_id from market_search.
source_hubNoThe source_hub from market_search, when it shows one. Required for federated capabilities — most of the catalogue; omitting it makes the hub look for the capability locally and answer 404.
capability_idYesThe exact capability_id from market_search.
max_price_usdNoAtomic total-price ceiling. Copy the selected search result's max_price_usd here; the Hub returns price_limit_exceeded before work or payment if the route was repriced.
payment_channelNo
x_payment_nonceNoThe invoice nonce from the 402 that x_payment pays.
x_payment_secretNoThe payment_secret from that 402. The nonce and the transaction are public once mined; the secret is what shows you are the one who paid.
include_full_receiptNoReturn the hub's raw response, including the full hybrid Ed25519 + ML-DSA-65 receipt signature (about 7 KB).
payment_authorizationNo
payment_channel_secretNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the trial allowance, that every call returns the hub's signed receipt, that the hub answers 402 once allowance is spent, and that the tool reports the 402 honestly rather than fabricating a result. It also names all three paid-access routes (X-API-Key header, payment_channel + secret, on-chain x402), covering auth and rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler; every clause about trials, 402 handling, and payment routes is substantive. It is one dense paragraph where a short list of payment modes would scan faster, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a 12-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essential behaviors: trial limits, 402 fallback, receipt signing, and all payment paths. The per-parameter details are mostly handled by the 75%-covered schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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?

Schema description coverage is already 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by grouping parameters into coherent payment modes (X-API-Key, payment_channel + secret, x_payment + nonce + secret), clarifying which params travel together in a way per-field schema text does not.

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?

States a specific verb (invoke) and resource (a capability found via market_search), making the search-then-invoke workflow unambiguous. It is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling market_search, which finds rather than calls capabilities.

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?

Makes clear this is the call that follows market_search and explains the trial-then-paid escalation path, including what happens when the free allowance runs out (402 + next_steps). It does not address when to prefer pipeline_invoke over this tool, leaving one sibling relationship unaddressed.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools