Breach402 Owner Protection

Prepare Paid Breach Check

prepare_paid_breach_check

Idempotent

Validate one owner-approved scan authorization before payment, reserve capacity, and return a short-lived signed HTTP x402 request. The price is $1 USDC on Solana.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scan_token`	Yes	One-time token returned after owner verification.
`idempotency_key`	Yes	8-128 character unique key generated by the agent.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Protected endpoint that returns the x402 payment requirement.
`body`	No	Exact JSON body for the protected request.
`asset`	No	Settlement asset.
`check`	No	Existing paid-check receipt when already paid.
`price`	No	USDC price for the owner-approved scan.
`method`	No	HTTP method for the protected request.
`headers`	No	Required HTTP headers, including the idempotency key.
`network`	No	Solana network used for settlement.
`expires_at`	No	Time when the prepared payment request expires.
`instruction`	No	Payment and retry instructions for the customer agent.
`already_paid`	No	Whether this idempotent request already produced a paid check.
`payment_ticket`	No	Private signed capability for submitting the protected x402 request.
`payment_ticket_id`	No	Identifier for the reserved payment attempt.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the returned request is short-lived and signed (x402), and that payment is required (price, blockchain). Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds valuable behavioral context about the request and payment, without contradicting annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and every word adds value. It front-loads the main action and includes critical details (price, request type) without unnecessary verbiage.

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 (payment, short-lived request) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, parameters, pricing, and the nature of the returned request, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 repeats the schema definitions for scan_token and idempotency_key but does not add new meaning or format details beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 specific actions: validates owner-approved authorization, reserves capacity, and returns a signed HTTP x402 request. It also mentions payment details ($1 USDC on Solana). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on email verification and breach report retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is used after obtaining a scan_token from owner verification, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_breach_report or create_owner_email_verification. No exclusions or use cases are provided, so guidance is minimal.

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

All Breach402 Owner Protection tools Inspect

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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role in the workflow: decision aid, verification lifecycle, payment preparation, report retrieval, and demo. No two tools appear to perform the same action, and the descriptions clearly differentiate free vs. paid, synthetic vs. real, and pending vs. verified states.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_owner_email_verification, get_breach_report, revoke_owner_email_authorization). The verbs (assess, create, get, prepare, preview, revoke, verify) are predictable and match the action taken.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. The count is proportional to the complexity of the domain, covering the full owner-protection workflow without excessive granularity or missing essential phases.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the complete lifecycle from need assessment through email verification, paid check preparation, and report retrieval, plus revoke and preview. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to query the status of an in-progress paid scan, which could leave agents polling indefinitely or assuming the report is ready when it is not.

Resources

Need Help?