Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

by ai.tunnelmind

x402_echo

Validates an agent's x402 v1 client implementation against a TunnelMind surface end-to-end. Two operating modes:

  • mode: "demo" — HMAC over a nonce against a publicly-published secret. Does not move USDC. Smoke proves the WIRE works, not money movement.

  • mode: "x402" — real Coinbase facilitator dispatch (gated on operator wallet provisioning; currently returns "facilitator not configured").

Without an X-PAYMENT header, the endpoint returns HTTP 402 with a standards- compliant accepts[] array (USDC on Base, $0.001).

With a valid X-PAYMENT header (base64-encoded payment payload), echoes the request body and returns an X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE settlement header.

Use this tool when:

  • You are validating your agent's x402 v1 client implementation against a real public endpoint.

  • You want to demonstrate the full 402 → retry → settle wire end-to-end.

Do NOT use this tool when:

  • You need a real paid operation — no TunnelMind production endpoint is gated behind x402 yet.

Inputs:

  • X-PAYMENT (header, optional): base64(JSON) per the x402 v1 spec. Without it, a 402 challenge is returned.

  • Request body (optional): any JSON object to be echoed back on successful payment.

Returns:

  • On no header: HTTP 402 + { x402Version, accepts: [...] }.

  • On valid payment: HTTP 200 + { ok: true, data: { echoed, paid_micro_usdc, x402 } } and an X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header carrying the settlement record.

  • On invalid payment: HTTP 402 + { error: "invalid payment", reason }.

Discovery:

  • https://tunnelmind.ai/.well-known/x402.json carries the public demo secret and the HMAC construction recipe.

Cost:

  • Free in demo mode (no USDC moved). $0.001 USDC in real-mode (when activated).

Latency:

  • Typical <100ms (demo mode); real mode is bounded by facilitator latency.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
X-PAYMENTNobase64(JSON) payment payload per the x402 v1 spec. Absent → 402 challenge.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and exceeds it. It details two operating modes (demo vs. x402), exact HTTP responses for missing/valid/invalid X-PAYMENT headers, the 'accepts[]' array, cost implications, and latency expectations. This is a model of behavioral disclosure.

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 long but well-structured with clear section headers, bullet points, and code-like syntax for returns. Every section (Inputs, Returns, Discovery, Cost, Latency) earns its place by providing non-redundant, actionable information. It's front-loaded with the most critical purpose statement.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (modes, payment protocol, headers) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers inputs, all output cases, error handling, cost, latency, and discovery of the demo secret—everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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?

The input schema already describes X-PAYMENT with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that X-PAYMENT is a 'header', its base64(JSON) format, and explicitly tying it to the 402→retry→settle flow. It doesn't go into deep syntax but the additional header context justifies a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Validates an agent's x402 v1 client implementation against a TunnelMind surface end-to-end.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling verification tools by focusing on x402 client validation against a public endpoint, not generic agent verification.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided with dedicated 'Use this tool when' and 'Do NOT use this tool when' sections, including concrete scenarios like 'validating your agent's x402 v1 client implementation' and an exclusion for 'a real paid operation'. This leaves no ambiguity about appropriate vs. inappropriate usage.

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

All TunnelMind Data API 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as cross_lens_verify, cross_lens_lookup, profile_entity, and preflight_should_i_act, which all return node verdicts with subtle differences. Sigil verification tools and receipt-related tools also have similar names and require deep reading to distinguish.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tool names are mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (get_domain, create_subscription) while others use domain prefixes (sigil_*, ghostroute_*, intel_*). Within each domain, naming is consistent, but the overall style lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 90 tools, this server is extremely overloaded. Even for a multi-purpose data API, the sheer number overwhelms and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped MCP server. The count is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering tracker lookup, cross-lens verification, receipts, compliance, subscriptions, tasks, intel probes, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch cross-lens verification, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources