Skip to main content
Glama

x402 Merchant Check

by com.gradientdecisions
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Pre-payment merchant trust checks for x402 agents on Base and Solana.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Uptime
100.0% over 36 days
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL
Repository
clevbot/merchant-check-mcp-
GitHub Stars
0
Server Listing
merchant-check-mcp

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion with another tool in the server. The tool's purpose is clearly defined, making its selection unambiguous for an agent.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name `check_merchant` follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is predictable and consistent. Since there are no other tool names to conflict, no naming inconsistency exists.

Tool Count4/5

The server is narrowly scoped to a single merchant-check action, so one tool is nearly ideal. While one tool is at the low end of the typical range, the narrow purpose prevents it from feeling thin.

Completeness5/5

The tool provides a complete decision-support workflow: it evaluates the merchant, returns a machine-readable recommendation, and supports optional price comparison. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Available Tools

1 tool
check_merchantAInspect

Before paying an unfamiliar merchant via x402, including one just discovered through a marketplace like Coinbase's x402 Bazaar, call this for a machine-readable assessment of their observable on-chain payment behavior, on Base or Solana. Returns a recommendation (PROCEED / CAUTION / INSUFFICIENT_SIGNAL) a payment policy can branch on directly, plus supporting evidence: trust tier, confidence, payer diversity, transaction history, category (data_api/compute/content_generation/financial_data/storage/other), known platform URL(s), and the merchant's own advertised price(s) compared against category peers, with no caller-supplied price required for that. This is decision support drawn from observed behavior, not a certification. PROCEED means the available evidence doesn't show cause for concern, not a guarantee of safety. INSUFFICIENT_SIGNAL means there isn't enough history to say either way, distinct from an actual concern. Add a specific quoted price to also check that exact figure against comparable sellers. $0.01 USDC per check, paid via x402.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoOptional. Payment asset/token from the 402 response's accepts[].asset. Not required to score.
priceNoQuoted price in USD-equivalent, if checking fairness
amountNoOptional. Atomic payment amount from the 402 response's accepts[].amount, if preferred over `price`. Not required to score.
networkNoOptional. CAIP-2 network id from the 402 response's accepts[].network (e.g. "eip155:8453"), if already on hand. Not required to score.
service_urlNoOptional. The resource/service URL the agent was trying to reach. Not required to score.
resource_typeNoDeprecated, accepted but unused. Price-fairness now compares against the merchant's own on-chain-derived category automatically, no need to supply this.
merchant_wallet_addressYesMerchant's receiving wallet address: a Base (0x...) or Solana (base58) address. Usually extractable directly from a 402 Payment Required response's accepts[].payTo.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully describes behavioral aspects: it's decision support from observed behavior, PROCEED means no cause for concern (not a guarantee), INSUFFICIENT_SIGNAL means limited history rather than concern. However, it doesn't mention any security considerations or potential side effects beyond the cost, which would push it to 5.

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 comprehensive yet concise, front-loading the core purpose and usage context. Every sentence adds value, covering when to use, outputs, caveats, optional features, and cost. No wasted words.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description fully covers all needed information: output structure, caveats, optional use cases, and cost. It leaves no obvious gaps for agent decision-making.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description goes significantly beyond by explaining the optional parameters' roles (price for fairness, amount as alternative to price, network CAIP-2 id, service_url, resource_type deprecated) and their practical usage context. It clarifies that merchant_wallet_address is extractable from a 402 response, adding real implementation guidance.

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 tool checks a merchant's on-chain payment behavior on Base or Solana before paying via x402. It specifies the output returns a recommendation (PROCEED/CAUTION/INSUFFICIENT_SIGNAL) and supporting evidence, and explicitly distinguishes its use case (unfamiliar merchants, including those from marketplaces like Coinbase's x402 Bazaar).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use context (before paying an unfamiliar merchant via x402), mentions specific scenarios (discovered via marketplace), and clearly states what the tool is not (a certification). It also describes how to use optional parameters like price for fairness checks, and notes the $0.01 USDC cost per check.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 1 tool update
    • Changedcheck_merchant2 fields changed
      • changedInput schema / properties / merchant_wallet_address / description
        Previous value: -"Merchant's receiving wallet address — a Base (0x…) or Solana (base58) address. Usually extractable directly from a 402 Payment Required response's accepts[].payTo."New value: +"Merchant's receiving wallet address: a Base (0x...) or Solana (base58) address. Usually extractable directly from a 402 Payment Required response's accepts[].payTo."
      • changedInput schema / properties / resource_type / description
        Previous value: -"Deprecated, accepted but unused — price-fairness now compares against the merchant's own on-chain-derived category automatically, no need to supply this."New value: +"Deprecated, accepted but unused. Price-fairness now compares against the merchant's own on-chain-derived category automatically, no need to supply this."
  2. 1 tool update
    • Changedcheck_merchant5 fields changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / amount
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. Atomic payment amount from the 402 response's accepts[].amount, if preferred over `price`. Not required to score.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
      • addedInput schema / properties / asset
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. Payment asset/token from the 402 response's accepts[].asset. Not required to score.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
      • changedInput schema / properties / merchant_wallet_address / description
        Previous value: -"Merchant's receiving wallet address — a Base (0x…) or Solana (base58) address"New value: +"Merchant's receiving wallet address — a Base (0x…) or Solana (base58) address. Usually extractable directly from a 402 Payment Required response's accepts[].payTo."
      • addedInput schema / properties / network
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. CAIP-2 network id from the 402 response's accepts[].network (e.g. \"eip155:8453\"), if already on hand. Not required to score.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
      • addedInput schema / properties / service_url
        Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The resource/service URL the agent was trying to reach. Not required to score.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. 1 tool update
    • Changedcheck_merchant1 field changed
      • changedInput schema / properties / merchant_wallet_address / description
        Previous value: -"EVM address of the merchant's receiving wallet"New value: +"Merchant's receiving wallet address — a Base (0x…) or Solana (base58) address"
  4. 1 tool update
    • First observedcheck_merchant

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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.

Resources