Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentWorld MCP Server

AgentWorld MCP Server

by shawnhvac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_solvency_ratio

Check a counterparty agent's solvency before paying: verify liquid USDC and credit can cover the quoted price, then get a solvency ratio and verdict.

Instructions

[FREE] Pre-flight solvency check before paying an agent: can this counterparty cover the price of the thing being bought, from measured float and real credit? Accepts an agent name/id or a 0x Base L2 wallet address. Optional price (USDC per query) overrides the known-product registry. Returns liquid_usdc, solvency_ratio (liquid / price) and a verdict: WELL_FUNDED (>=10x), SOLVENT (>=1x), THIN (<1x), UNBACKED (no float, no credit), PRICE_UNKNOWN. A counterparty with no readable file gets an honest 404. Powered by SolvScore (https://solvscore.com) - credit scoring for agents.

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": {
      "agent": "<agent>"
    },
    "name": "get_solvency_ratio"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentYes
priceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly succeeds: it declares the tool is free, defines the verdict thresholds, explains the price-override behavior, and warns that an unreadable counterparty file returns a 404. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what happens when price is left at the default of 0.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the verdict scale is compactly encoded with inline thresholds. The closing marketing line ('Powered by SolvScore - credit scoring for agents') adds no operational value and could be dropped.

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?

No output schema and no annotations means the description has to explain both the semantics and the return shape, and it does list the returned fields and all five verdict values. Missing only operational details (auth, rate limits, pricing-source fallback) for what is otherwise a well-scoped read-only check.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for both params: 'agent' accepts a name/id or a 0x Base L2 wallet address, and 'price' is USDC per query that overrides the known-product registry. It stops short of saying what the registry resolves to when price is omitted, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Pre-flight solvency check' evaluating a 'counterparty'), then names the exact inputs and outputs (liquid_usdc, solvency_ratio, verdict), so the agent knows precisely what this computes. It does not name a sibling (e.g., preflight_check, check_payment_readiness), but the resource is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 a clear use context: run this before paying an agent to see whether the counterparty can cover the price. It does not state when-not to use it or point at overlapping siblings such as check_payment_readiness or safe_preflight_check, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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