Compass by 402rates

Inspect x402 payment terms without making a payment

check_payment_terms

Read-only

Free inspection of unsigned x402 terms. Default analysis version 1 retains Exact EVM checks; analysis_version 2 inspects documented EVM Exact, Upto, Batch Settlement and Auth-Capture profiles, declared limits and lifecycle fields. Unknown fields stay unchecked. No wallet, signature verification, live contract validation or settlement.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_payment_terms"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expected`	No	Optional exact terms. An atomic budget requires network and asset.
`challenge`	No	Decoded PaymentRequired object from HTTP or MCP structuredContent. No signed payment or credentials.
`analysis_version`	No	1 preserves the original Exact EVM report. 2 selects documented multi-scheme structural inspection, report version 2.0.0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

changedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

addedInput schema / properties / analysis_version

Added value: +{
+  "description": "1 preserves the original Exact EVM report. 2 selects documented multi-scheme structural inspection, report version 2.0.0.",
+  "enum": [
+    "1",
+    "2"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / expected / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -{}New value: +true
```

addedInput schema / properties / expected / properties

Added value: +{
+  "asset": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "max_amount_atomic": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "network": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "pay_to": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "scheme": {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

First observedSep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial scope detail: versioned analysis, unknown fields left unchecked, and explicit exclusions of wallet use, signature verification, live validation, and settlement. This is exactly the limitation context an agent needs to avoid expecting a live payment check.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then covers version behavior and limitations in a few compact sentences. Dense but every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, it explains what the inspection covers and explicitly what it does not validate, which sets expectations well. It still does not describe the report shape or error behavior, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful detail for analysis_version by naming the v2 profiles and confirming v1 retains Exact EVM checks. It adds less beyond the schema for expected and challenge.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: inspection/check of unsigned x402 payment terms. It also states that it is free and makes no payment, which clearly separates it from execution-oriented siblings such as test_payment.

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?

Gives clear usage context: inspect unsigned terms without a wallet, signature verification, live contract validation, or settlement. It does not explicitly route the agent to compare_payment_terms or test_payment for alternative needs.

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

All Compass by 402rates tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?