Skip to main content
Glama

FiatDock

by com.fiatdock

Call a marketplace service

call_service

Invoke a listed FiatDock service. PAID listings go THROUGH the gateway (POST /s/:id) so the non-custodial split is enforced — normally TWO payments (99% seller + 1% FiatDock), or ONE full-price payment to the seller during that seller's first-month 0% launch window. TO BUY: call once WITHOUT payment to get the 402 challenge and step-by-step instructions, sign it with your own wallet, then call again with the same id/args plus payment set to the base64 x402 payload — the gateway settles on-chain directly to the seller and returns their response. No wallet? npx fiatdock-mcp with AGENT_PRIVATE_KEY signs automatically. FREE / first-party listings are forwarded to their real MCP endpoint directly (no payment). Pass the service's expected request body as args.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesListing id (svc_…) to invoke, from search_services
argsNoJSON payload to send to the service (e.g. an MCP JSON-RPC request body) — shape is defined by that service
paymentNoBase64 x402 v2 PaymentPayload signed by YOUR wallet, satisfying every entry in the 402's `accepts`. Omit on the first call to receive the challenge; send it on the second call to complete the purchase. Sent to the gateway as the X-PAYMENT header — FiatDock never holds the funds.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYestrue when the underlying service returned a 2xx
resultNoThe service's response body — parsed JSON when it returned JSON, otherwise the raw text
statusYesHTTP status returned by the service (or the gateway)
serviceYesListing id that was invoked
routedThroughGatewayYestrue if PAID (settled 99% seller / 1% FiatDock via /s/:id); false if FREE/first-party direct

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: paid listings route through the gateway, payment split is normally 99/1 with a 0% launch-window exception, the 402 challenge flow requires two calls, and FiatDock never holds funds. It also covers the free-listing direct-forwarding behavior. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is longer than average but highly structured: it starts with the core purpose, then explains the paid flow, the free flow, and the no-wallet alternative. Each sentence adds necessary operational detail. It is not padded, but could be tightened slightly by separating the wallet-setup command into a prerequisite note.

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?

For a complex multi-step payment tool, the description covers the full invocation lifecycle: challenge, signing, payment submission, gateway settlement, free-list fallback, and wallet automation. With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not required. The description is complete and self-sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant workflow meaning. It explains that `payment` is omitted on the first call and set on the second, that `args` is the service-specific request body, and that `id` comes from search_services. This elevates parameter understanding beyond raw schema definitions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Invoke a listed FiatDock service.' It clearly distinguishes this call/invoke tool from sibling tools like search_services and get_service by describing the actual invocation mechanics (gateway vs direct forwarding). The scope and action are unmistakable.

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?

The description provides explicit workflow instructions: call once without `payment` to get the 402 challenge, sign, then call again with payment. It also states when payment is NOT needed (free/first-party listings). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools (e.g., 'use get_service for metadata'), so it lacks a direct alternatives statement.

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

All FiatDock toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, but a few intentional bundles create mild selection overlap: token_report duplicates the data from token_price + token_safety, and address_intel overlaps eth_balance/usdc_balance plus safety. The descriptions explain the trade-offs well, so this is a minor rather than severe issue.

Naming Consistency4/5

Data-query tools follow a solid subject_metric pattern (token_price, usdc_balance, tx_status), while state-changing tools use verb_object (create_onramp_session, call_service). The pattern is readable and mostly consistent, but not a single uniform verb_noun convention throughout, so it falls just short of perfect.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is above the typical 3-15 well-scoped range, but the server genuinely spans Base chain primitives, token intelligence, fiat ramps, and a marketplace. Each tool has a purpose, and the count is reasonable rather than bloated.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered end-to-end: quote -> create on/off-ramp session -> order status; token price/safety/metadata/report; marketplace search/get/call; chain/tx primitives. Minor gaps exist, such as no order cancellation, no list-all-services endpoint, and no supported-country/method endpoint despite those details living in descriptions.

Resources