A
license-
qualityC
maintenancePay-per-call web search for AI agents, settled in USDC on Base via the x402 protocol. No API key or subscription required; users fund a wallet and get a web_search tool.
8
1
MIT
Epanya
by ai.epanya
Server Details
x402-paid web search for AI agents. TESTNET (Base Sepolia). No valid result, no charge.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A3.8/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceB
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools serve completely different purposes: one for looking up a payment receipt by transaction hash, and the other for performing web searches. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming pattern is inconsistent: 'lookup_receipt' uses verb_noun, while 'search' is just a verb. No common prefix or convention ties them together.
Tool Count3/5
Only 2 tools feels thin for a payment-related server, especially missing core operations like initiating a payment or checking balances. However, the testnet context may justify a minimal surface.
Completeness2/5
The server lacks essential payment lifecycle tools (create payment, list transactions, etc.), and the search tool seems unrelated, leaving significant gaps for typical use cases.
Available Tools
2 toolslookup_receiptAInspect
Look up the public settlement receipt for an Epanya payment by its Base Sepolia transaction hash. Free — receipts are public by design.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| txHash | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
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. It discloses that the operation is free and public, but does not discuss read-only nature, rate limits, or potential side effects. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 the core action, and no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose.
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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could benefit from a brief note about the return value format, but the provided information is sufficient for a basic understanding.
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?
There is one parameter (txHash) with a regex pattern in the schema. The description adds context by specifying 'Base Sepolia transaction hash', but does not elaborate on format or example values. Baseline is 3 due to low schema description coverage, and the description provides minimal additional meaning.
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 verb (look up), the resource (public settlement receipt), and the identifier (Base Sepolia transaction hash). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'search' by specifying the exact lookup method.
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 indicates that the tool is free and receipts are public, implying no access restrictions. It does not explicitly mention when to avoid using it or provide alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a focused lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchAInspect
Schema-validated web search for AI agents. Multi-provider failover; no schema-valid result, no charge (settle-after-validation). TESTNET: Base Sepolia USDC only — amounts have no monetary value. Live stats with on-chain proofs: https://epanya.ai
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| maxResults | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond basic functionality: multi-provider failover, no charge for non-schema-valid results, and a testnet limitation (Base Sepolia USDC only, no real value). This adds value beyond the absent annotations.
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 concise with three sentences, each adding value: purpose, failover/billing, and testnet details. It is front-loaded with the main action and wastes no words.
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?
Without an output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, and constraints. It omits explicit details about return format but provides a link for live stats and on-chain proofs, making it fairly complete for a search tool.
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 input schema is straightforward with 'query' and 'maxResults', and the description does not add specific meaning for these parameters. However, the schema covers the essential information, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Schema-validated web search for AI agents', specifying the verb (search) and resource (web). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'lookup_receipt', which is for retrieving receipts, so no confusion arises.
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 for general web search but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lookup_receipt'. It provides context on multi-provider failover and testnet constraints but lacks direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceWeb search API for AI agents. Returns structured results with title, URL, and snippet; pay-per-call via x402 micropayments.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenancePaid web research MCP tools for autonomous agents: search, page extraction, citations, and diff monitoring through a live x402 API. Unpaid calls return the Base USDC payment requirement so agents can pay and retry safely.41MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceSearch 14,000+ x402-enabled HTTP APIs by keyword. Agents pay $0.01 USDC per search via x402 micropayments on Base mainnet — no API keys or accounts required.1362MIT