ScorpTech x402 API

Openapi Summary

openapi_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarise an OpenAPI 3.x or Swagger 2.0 API from a URL (SSRF-safe) or an inline JSON / YAML spec, so an agent can learn an API fast: title, version, servers / base URLs, auth schemes (API key, bearer, OAuth flows), and every operation with method, path, operationId, summary, tags, parameters (with $ref resolved), request body types, response codes and per-operation security. Filter by tag or search text. Price: $0.004 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/openapi-summary

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": "openapi_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tag`	No	Only operations with this tag
`url`	No	URL of the spec (JSON or YAML)
`spec`	No	Inline spec as a JSON object, or a JSON / YAML string (instead of url)
`limit`	No
`search`	No	Only operations whose path, operationId or summary contains this text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: SSRF-safe fetching, a per-call price of $0.004 USDC via x402 on Solana, and an equivalent HTTPS endpoint. Cost and payment rail are decision-critical facts an agent cannot get from any structured field.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability, and the trailing sentence carries operational facts (price, transport) that an agent needs. It is dense and slightly long, but no clause is padding except perhaps the redundant title echo; a light restructure into capability / filtering / access would read better.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned shape field-by-field. Remaining gaps are the unbounded `limit` semantics (default 100, max 1000) and error/failure behavior on a paid call, which matter given the charge applies only to successful calls.

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?

Schema coverage is 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on `spec` (JSON object or JSON/YAML string, alternative to `url`) and on `tag`/`search` filtering scope, plus the important promise that $refs are resolved. However, `limit` is undescribed everywhere and the mutual exclusivity of url vs spec is only implied by a parenthetical.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Summarise an OpenAPI 3.x or Swagger 2.0 API') and immediately enumerates the extracted fields (title, version, servers, auth schemes, operations), so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It is unmistakable against the surrounding sibling set, which is dominated by number-theory and format-conversion utilities.

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?

Gives clear context for use ('so an agent can learn an API fast') and names the two input modes (URL vs inline spec) plus the two filtering modes (tag, search text). It doesn't state when NOT to use it or point at a near-alternative such as schema_validate or json_schema_infer, so it stops short of full routing 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 API 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?