CrossingKey MCP

Purchase Artifact Integrity Manifest

artifact.integrity_manifest

PAID $0.10 USDC on Base via x402. Creates deterministic SHA-256 entries and a root manifest hash for supplied text artifacts. Calling this MCP tool does not spend funds; it returns the exact PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge and canonical paid execution endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`artifacts`	Yes	Artifacts to include in the integrity manifest.
`idempotency_key`	No
`payment_payload`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	Yes
`input`	Yes
`price`	Yes
`pay_to`	Yes
`network`	Yes
`capability`	Yes
`instruction`	Yes
`execution_url`	Yes
`execution_mode`	Yes
`payment_required`	Yes
`payment_required_header`	Yes
`settlement_expectations`	Yes
`confirmation_expectations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 8,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / payment_payload

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 2, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Removed value: -{
-  "maxLength": 160,
-  "minLength": 8,
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / payment_payload

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": {},
-  "type": "object"
-}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "asset": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "capability": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "confirmation_expectations": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "execution_mode": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "execution_url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "input": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "instruction": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "network": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "pay_to": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "payment_required": {
+      "const": true,
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payment_required_header": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "price": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "settlement_expectations": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "payment_required",
+    "execution_mode",
+    "capability",
+    "input",
+    "price",
+    "asset",
+    "network",
+    "pay_to",
+    "execution_url",
+    "payment_required_header",
+    "settlement_expectations",
+    "confirmation_expectations",
+    "instruction"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 8,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / payment_payload

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses valuable traits: the exact cost ($0.10 USDC on Base via x402), that no funds are spent on this call, and that it returns the PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge plus the canonical paid execution endpoint. This is meaningful context the annotations do not carry. There is a mild tension with readOnlyHint=false (the call is described as non-spending and challenge-returning), but not a clear contradiction.

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?

Three tight sentences with the price front-loaded and the crucial 'does not spend funds' caveat placed before the mechanics. Efficient overall, though the cost-first opening slightly obscures the tool's actual operation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the payment flow is covered. But given 33% parameter coverage and a nested-object param, the description leaves idempotency_key and payment_payload entirely unspecified, which is a real gap for a 3-param tool.

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 description coverage is only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. 'Supplied text artifacts' loosely maps to the artifacts array, but idempotency_key and payment_payload receive no explanation of format, purpose, or when to supply them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource: 'Creates deterministic SHA-256 entries and a root manifest hash for supplied text artifacts.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like commerce.quote or result.preview. However, it also muddies the purpose by pairing 'Purchase'/'PAID' framing with 'does not spend funds', leaving some ambiguity about what this call actually does.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The only contextual cue is that calling it returns a payment challenge, which implies usage but does not state conditions for selecting it over siblings.

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

All CrossingKey MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.