CrossingKey MCP

Purchase Machine-Commerce Readiness Audit

machine_commerce.readiness_audit

Idempotent

PAID $2.00 USDC on Base via x402. Checks machine-commerce discovery and health surfaces. Calling this MCP tool does not spend funds; it returns the exact PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge and canonical paid execution endpoint.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Base URL of the machine-commerce service to audit.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asset`	No
`error`	No
`input`	No
`price`	No
`pay_to`	No
`status`	No
`accepts`	No
`network`	No
`resource`	No
`capability`	No
`extensions`	No
`purchaseId`	No
`instruction`	No
`x402Version`	No
`entitlementId`	No
`execution_url`	No
`execution_mode`	No
`payment_required`	No
`payment_required_header`	No
`settlement_expectations`	No
`confirmation_expectations`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

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

addedOutput schema / properties / accepts

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / entitlementId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / error
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / extensions

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

addedOutput schema / properties / purchaseId
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / resource

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

addedOutput schema / properties / status
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / x402Version

Added value: +{
+  "const": 2,
+  "type": "number"
+}

removedOutput schema / required

Removed value: -[
-  "payment_required",
-  "execution_mode",
-  "capability",
-  "input",
-  "price",
-  "asset",
-  "network",
-  "pay_to",
-  "execution_url",
-  "payment_required_header",
-  "settlement_expectations",
-  "confirmation_expectations",
-  "instruction"
-]

Changed1 schema field changedOct 2, 2026

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"
+}

AddedSep 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true but readOnlyHint=false, which alone would not tell an agent that no money moves. The description resolves this by explicitly stating the call does not spend funds and returns a payment challenge plus the paid execution endpoint, which is the critical non-obvious behavior. Auth requirements and rate limits are still unmentioned.

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?

Three tight sentences that front-load the price and payment rail before the operational detail. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description usefully adds the payment flow and the no-spend guarantee. Given the tool is paid and gated behind x402, it is adequately complete, though it omits any hint of what a failed or unauthorized audit looks like.

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?

Only one parameter ('url'), documented at 100% in the schema with a clear description of what to supply. The description adds nothing about the url parameter or its format, so this sits at the baseline where the schema carries the semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('checks') and resource scope ('machine-commerce discovery and health surfaces'), so the intent is legible. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many audit siblings (x402.compatibility_audit, mcp.launch_audit, openapi.quality_audit), and the phrase 'discovery and health surfaces' stays abstract about what is actually audited.

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?

It clearly communicates the calling workflow: invoke this tool to receive the PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge and canonical paid endpoint, without spending funds. That is genuine usage context, but no sibling alternative is named and no condition for choosing this audit over the other audit tools is stated.

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.