ScorpTech x402 Tools

Card Validate

card_validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Payment card number checks without storing anything: Luhn checksum, brand / network from the IIN (Visa, Mastercard incl. 2-series, Amex, Discover, Diners, JCB, UnionPay, Maestro, Mir, Elo, Hipercard, Verve, RuPay, Dankort, Troy, UATP), allowed lengths, CVV length, card-number spacing, known public test numbers (Stripe, Braintree, Adyen) and expiry validity. Returns only the PCI-safe first 6 / last 4 — never the full number. Up to 100 numbers per call. POST so numbers stay out of URLs and logs. Price: $0.001 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/card-validate

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "card_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`now`	No	Reference date YYYY-MM-DD (default today, UTC)
`expiry`	No	MM/YY or MM/YYYY (applies to number)
`number`	No
`numbers`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), the description adds substantial behavior: no storage, returns only PCI-safe first6/last4, POST to keep numbers out of URLs/logs, up to 100 per call, and pricing (x402, $0.001 USDC per successful call). This is exactly the operational and cost context annotations can't convey.

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?

It is front-loaded with purpose and dense with useful specifics. The long brand enumeration is verbose but genuinely informative for coverage expectations; most other sentences earn their place. Only the brand list could be trimmed.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description discloses the key return contract (only first6/last4, nothing sensitive stored), plus transport (POST), pricing, and an alternate endpoint. Everything an agent needs to call it safely and correctly is present.

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

Parameters4/5

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

At 50% schema coverage the two undocumented params are 'number' and 'numbers'; the description bridges these by framing single-number checks and batch mode ('Up to 100 numbers per call'), and covers expiry validity for the 'expiry' param. It doesn't explicitly distinguish the 'now' reference-date param or clarify number vs numbers precedence, leaving minor gaps.

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 states a specific verb (payment card number checks) plus the full set of checks performed (Luhn, IIN brand detection, lengths, CVV, expiry), making it unmistakable versus siblings like ean_validate, iban_validate, or imei_validate. An agent can tell exactly what this does without opening the schema.

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 establishes operational context: batch mode (up to 100 numbers per call), the HTTPS alternative endpoint, and no storage. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to prefer this over other validators, nor any prerequisites/exclusions, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All ScorpTech x402 Tools 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.

Resources

Need Help?