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.
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.
Average 4.4/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of overlap or confusion. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct from any potential others.
The single tool name follows a clear verb_noun pattern (forecast_payment), which is consistent. Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained.
A single tool feels thin for a payment guardrail server, especially considering the tool includes multiple sub-features (reputation, sanctions, anomaly detection). However, the server's scope is narrowly defined as a pre-signature verdict, so the count is borderline rather than severely inappropriate.
The tool covers the core forecast functionality, but lacks supporting operations such as verifying the signed receipt or handling the x402 payment challenge it may return. This creates a potential dead-end for agents needing to act on non-GO verdicts.
forecast_paymentAInspectPre-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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full weight. It openly discloses critical behaviors: no custody, signed receipt, fee threshold, and data sources. It does not describe challenges in detail, but the transparency is strong for a lightweight tool.
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 compact, deliverable, and front-loaded with the core verdict concept. It wastes no words and packs in essential details (receipt, free threshold, no custody) in two concise sentences.
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 no output schema, but the description covers the return value (verdict and receipt) and the key behavioral context (free under $10, otherwise challenge). Some return-format specifics are missing, but what's provided is sufficient for safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters, setting baseline at 3. The description adds meaning by explaining how parameters feed into the verdict (settlement reputation, price-anomaly) and the threshold behavior, which helps interpret values like amount and context beyond the schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool as a payment forecast returning a GO/HOLD/STOP verdict based on reputation, price anomaly, and sanctions. It specifies the resource (payment decision) and the output (verdict with signed receipt), going far beyond the name 'forecast_payment'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear 'when' by noting it's a pre-signature verdict, and a clear 'what-not' with 'Verdict only; never takes custody.' However, no explicit alternatives are mentioned (sibling tools is empty), so it stops short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
