Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aqb-agent

aqb-agent

by yss787976-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

aqb_pay

Sends AQB payments to another agent by specifying the recipient and amount in human units, with an optional account parameter.

Instructions

Pay AQB to another agent (amount in human units, e.g. 1.5)

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "aqb": "<aqb>"
    },
    "name": "aqb_pay"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
aqbYes
accountNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It clarifies that the amount is in human units, but it does not disclose authorization requirements, irreversibility, fees, failure modes, or what the response contains for a payment operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical amount clarification is useful, though the overall brevity leaves important gaps that belong in other dimensions.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a payment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is too sparse. It omits recipient/account semantics, safety behavior, and return expectations that an agent would need before invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 for all three parameters. It explains the aqb amount format with an example, but it does not explain the required "to" recipient parameter or the optional "account" parameter.

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: "Pay AQB to another agent." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this payment action from sibling tools such as aqb_cash_out, aqb_fund, or aqb_redeem.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent can infer that this tool sends AQB to another agent, but there is no guidance on when to choose it over related tools like aqb_cash_out or aqb_fund.

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

This server cannot be deployed

Other Tools