Skip to main content
Glama

AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite

by co.ainumbers

x402 Header Decoder, Payload Linter & 402 Flow Simulator

decode_x402_payment
Read-onlyIdempotent

Decode an x402 payment header or lint an exact-scheme PaymentPayload, and describe the HTTP-402 verify/settle flow. Use when a developer is integrating x402 and needs to inspect a header, check a payload shape, or understand the flow. Renders the interactive AINumbers tool as a widget; inputs are applied via the AIN Bridge and the tool runs client-side (zero PII, zero network).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputsNoMap of tool input element IDs to values (see manifest input_schema). Applied via AIN Bridge prefill.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decodedNo
findingsNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description adds value by noting it renders an interactive widget, runs client-side with zero PII and no network calls. This goes beyond annotations but could mention any limitations.

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 concise with three sentences covering function, usage, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action. A minor improvement could be to structure the flow more explicitly, but no fluff.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers function, usage, and some behavioral details. With output schema present, return values are not needed. However, the interactive widget aspect is mentioned but not fully explained, leaving some gaps for a tool with nested output and interactive features.

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 coverage is 100% but the sole parameter 'inputs' has a generic description. The tool description fails to explain how to use this parameter to achieve the stated purposes (decode, lint, describe). The description adds little meaning beyond the schema, which is insufficient for a single parameter.

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 tool decodes x402 headers, lints PaymentPayloads, and describes the HTTP-402 flow. The verb 'decode', 'lint', and 'describe' are specific to x402 operations, distinguishing it from siblings like 'simulate_x402_flow' and 'lint_x402_v2_migration'.

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 explicitly says to use when a developer is integrating x402 and needs to inspect a header, check a payload shape, or understand the flow. This provides clear context but does not mention when not to use or alternatives, slight gap for a top score.

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

All AINumbers Fintech Intelligence Suite 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

C2.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Nearly every tool is an 'OpenChainGraph compute node' with identical boilerplate, and dozens of assess/check/validate/verify/lint/recompute verbs overlap heavily in purpose. An agent cannot reliably tell which of many similarly scoped tools should handle a given compliance or analytics question.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most names are snake_case, so there is superficial consistency, but the verb vocabulary is enormous and unpredictable, mixing build/compute/check/validate/verify/lint/assess/classify/score/reconcile and more. Several noun-first names such as pain001_validate, recon_match, and ha_record_validate further break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

695 tools is far beyond any practical agent-facing surface, exceeding even the extreme end of the calibration range. This is a full product catalog dumped into one MCP server rather than a curated, usable tool set.

Completeness3/5

The suite covers an extremely wide range of fintech and regulatory calculators, validators, chain tools, and discovery utilities, so coverage is broad rather than thin. However, the lack of a clear domain boundary makes completeness nearly impossible to assess, and the heavy overlap suggests the surface was generated rather than intentionally designed.

Resources