Skip to main content
Glama

x402-services

by ai.firmbrain

preflight

Pre-Sign Co-Pilot — the ONE call an agent makes before signing ANY transaction, on ANY chain. Returns a single GO/CAUTION/STOP verdict: will it succeed (and if it reverts, why + the exact fix), is it safe (sanctions/drainer/unlimited-approval/rug — hard STOP), true cost (gas + USD), your exact wallet balance-changes after, AND the corrected transaction to sign instead. EVM: send { chain, tx:{to,data,from?,value?}, token?, spender?, swap? }. Solana: send { chain:'solana', transaction?, outputMint?, swap? }. Non-custodial — the corrected tx comes back UNSIGNED and you sign it. The mandatory guardrail at the universal choke point before signing. [x402 paid tool — price $0.01; POST /api/preflight]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
txNoEVM unsigned tx { to, data?, from?, value? }
swapNoOptional swap intent to build the corrected best-execution route (Solana: {inputMint,outputMint,amount,userPublicKey,slippageBps?}; EVM: {sellToken,buyToken,sellAmount,taker})
chainNobase (default), ethereum, arbitrum, optimism, polygon, bsc, or solana
tokenNoEVM: token being spent (lets us build the exact approve() fix)
strictNoHard-STOP on any likely revert or HIGH risk
spenderNoEVM: spender/router for the approve() fix (defaults to tx.to)
outputMintNoSolana: token mint to safety-check (rug/authorities)
transactionNoSolana: base64 serialized (unsigned) transaction to simulate

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes return values (verdict, reasons, cost, balance changes, corrected transaction) and states it is non-custodial. It does not explicitly declare read-only/destructive nature, but returns unsigned tx, implying no state mutation.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the purpose and platform-specific instructions. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all needed info: what to send for both chains, what is returned, cost, and non-custodial nature. Fully prepared to use the tool.

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

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and description adds significant context: explains tx structure, swap intent details for each chain, chain list, token/spender roles, and strict mode. Provides platform-specific usage patterns beyond schema.

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 it is a 'Pre-Sign Co-Pilot' that returns a GO/CAUTION/STOP verdict before signing any transaction. It positions itself as the single mandatory preflight call, distinguishing it from siblings like safety_guardrail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'the ONE call an agent makes before signing ANY transaction' and provides detailed instructions for EVM and Solana usage, including required fields. It also notes it is non-custodial and includes a paid tool mention.

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

All x402-services toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.

Tool Count2/5

With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.

Resources