Black_Wall x402 Payment Guardrail
Server Details
Pre-signature x402 payment-risk oracle. AI agents call forecast_payment before paying a counterparty and get a GO / HOLD / STOP verdict from settlement reputation, price-anomaly (quoted vs the payee's own median), and OFAC sanctions screening — plus a third-party-verifiable Ed25519 signed receipt. Verdict only; never takes custody. Free under $10 at risk; returns an x402 payment challenge over that.
- 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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity. An agent will always select this tool for the server's purpose.
The single tool name 'forecast_payment' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and descriptive.
A single tool is on the low end; while it may be sufficient for a narrow pre-signature verdict service, it feels thin for a payment guardrail system that might benefit from additional operations.
The tool covers its stated purpose (pre-signature x402 payment verdict) completely, handling both free and challenged payments. No obvious gaps for the intended scope.
Available Tools
1 toolforecast_paymentAInspect
Pre-signature x402 payment verdict: GO / HOLD / STOP for paying a counterparty, from settlement reputation, price-anomaly (quoted vs the payee's own median), and OFAC sanctions — with a third-party-verifiable Ed25519 signed receipt. Verdict only; never takes custody. Free under $10 at risk; over that, returns an x402 payment challenge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | Yes | e.g. USDC | |
| chain | Yes | e.g. base | |
| payer | No | agent's EVM wallet (optional; binds settlement) | |
| amount | Yes | amount as a decimal string, e.g. "0.09" | |
| context | No | {quoted_price_history, expected_recipient} | |
| agent_id | No | caller DID/identity | |
| resource | No | what's being paid for | |
| counterparty | Yes | recipient wallet from the 402 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: never takes custody, returns a signed receipt, and provides a verdict. It also mentions the cost threshold. No destructive or unexpected behavior is indicated. The description is transparent about what the tool does and does not do.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at three sentences, with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary function and then adds relevant details about behavior and threshold. Every sentence carries weight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 8 parameters and nested objects, and no output schema. The description explains the outcome (GO/HOLD/STOP plus receipt) and key behavioral aspects. It could elaborate on the verdict structure, but given the lack of output schema, it provides sufficient context for invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the x402 payment system and the verdict, but parameter descriptions in the schema already explain each field. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: providing a pre-signature x402 payment verdict (GO/HOLD/STOP) for paying a counterparty, using settlement reputation, price-anomaly, and OFAC sanctions. It specifies the output as a third-party-verifiable Ed25519 signed receipt. This is specific and distinct, even without sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description states the tool is a 'Verdict only; never takes custody,' clarifying it does not execute transactions. It also notes the free threshold and that over $10 returns an x402 challenge. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, it provides clear context for when to use the tool (pre-payment risk assessment).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$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!