x402 Merchant Check
Server Details
Pre-payment merchant trust checks for x402 agents on Base and Solana.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- clevbot/merchant-check-mcp-
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- merchant-check-mcp
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion. The tool's purpose is clearly and unambiguously described.
The single tool name follows a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_merchant), making it predictable and clear.
The server contains just one tool, which is on the thin side compared to the typical 3-15 tool range. However, the tool is highly specialized and covers a narrow domain.
The tool fully covers the merchant check workflow, providing a recommendation, evidence, and pricing comparisons. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asset | No | Optional. Payment asset/token from the 402 response's accepts[].asset. Not required to score. | |
| price | No | Quoted price in USD-equivalent, if checking fairness | |
| amount | No | Optional. Atomic payment amount from the 402 response's accepts[].amount, if preferred over `price`. Not required to score. | |
| network | No | Optional. CAIP-2 network id from the 402 response's accepts[].network (e.g. "eip155:8453"), if already on hand. Not required to score. | |
| service_url | No | Optional. The resource/service URL the agent was trying to reach. Not required to score. | |
| resource_type | No | Deprecated, accepted but unused. Price-fairness now compares against the merchant's own on-chain-derived category automatically, no need to supply this. | |
| merchant_wallet_address | Yes | Merchant's receiving wallet address: a Base (0x...) or Solana (base58) address. Usually extractable directly from a 402 Payment Required response's accepts[].payTo. |
Tool Definition Quality
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 $0.01 USDC cost per check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenancePre-spend trust layer for agents paying over x402 on Solana, providing seller vetting and readiness checks before USDC leaves the wallet.1MIT- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceTrust scoring, scam detection, and EAS attestations for ERC-8004 + x402 agents on Base.18911MIT
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceCounterparty risk scoring for agentic commerce. Scores wallets, domains, IPs, and companies 0-100 before AI agents transact via x402 micropayments on Base13MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceEnables agents to vet merchants, create and verify USDC charges and invoices, assess trust and tokenized-asset authenticity, and manage provable books on Base, all non-custodially.55
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.