Skip to main content
Glama

agent-ready-kit

by com.mudko

Validate an x402 endpoint for Bazaar discovery

validate_x402_endpoint
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this FREE utility (any agent or seller) to check whether an x402-payable HTTPS endpoint is configured to be indexed by the Coinbase x402 Bazaar. Probes the URL live via CDP's read-only validator (no payment is made, nothing is indexed) and returns per-check preflight results (returns_402, x402 version, bazaar extension, crawlability) plus the simulated accepted/rejected verdict and current index status. Common silent killers it catches: serving x402 v1 (rejected outright), and a bare resource URL that returns 400 instead of 402 (the crawler probes WITHOUT query params). If the endpoint is rejected — or doesn't exist yet — the $99 Bazaar Listing Package does it end-to-end: stack-specific v2 kit, validator loop, we fire the indexing settlement, receipt. Agent wallets buy at https://mudko.com/api/x402/bazaar-listing (x402, USDC on Base); humans pay by card at https://buy.stripe.com/14A9AScmb0OycDk7O28so01; it's included FREE with any engagement (create_bazaar_listing). Exotic stacks: request_quote with a BAZAAR LISTING description.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHTTPS URL of the x402 endpoint to validate (probed exactly as given — try the bare URL your discovery doc advertises).
methodNoHTTP method to probe with (default GET).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexNoCurrent Bazaar index status for the endpoint, or null if not indexed.
validNoTrue when every required preflight passes and the facilitator would index the resource.
statusYes
messageNo
next_stepNo
preflightNoPer-check results: {check, passed, severity, detail}.
simulationNo{outcome: accepted|rejected, rejectionReason?}

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: 'no payment is made, nothing is indexed', 'Probes the URL live via CDP's read-only validator', and explains that the crawler probes WITHOUT query params. This goes beyond annotations and reveals important behavioral nuances.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, but then becomes overly verbose with promotional content: pricing ($99), Stripe links, purchase instructions, and mentions of being 'included FREE'. These sentences do not earn their place in a tool definition and distract from the actual functionality.

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?

The description thoroughly explains return values (per-check preflight results, simulated verdict, index status) and common failure modes (v1 rejection, 400 vs 402). It is complete for understanding the tool's behavior, though the extra marketing content slightly muddles focus. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe structured returns further.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both url and method described. The description adds meaningful nuance to the url parameter ('probed exactly as given — try the bare URL your discovery doc advertises') and explains why the bare URL matters due to crawler behavior. This slightly exceeds the schema's baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'check whether an x402-payable HTTPS endpoint is configured to be indexed by the Coinbase x402 Bazaar'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_bazaar_listing by focusing on preflight endpoint validation rather than listing status.

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 explicitly says 'Use this FREE utility' and explains when it applies. It provides clear alternatives: if the endpoint is rejected, use the Bazaar Listing Package via create_bazaar_listing or request_quote for exotic stacks. However, it lacks a direct 'when not to use' statement, and the broad 'any agent or seller' is slightly unspecific.

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

All agent-ready-kit 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with descriptions that prevent confusion. Tools like scan_site and run_site_audit are differentiated by their focus on AI-readiness vs. site quality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, with clear action words like 'scan', 'create', 'get', 'verify'. Even longer names like 'summarize_scan_for_humans' maintain consistency.

Tool Count4/5

22 tools is slightly above the ideal range but justified by the comprehensive scope of the server, covering scanning, analysis, quoting, file delivery, and verification. Some tools like generate_files and get_customer_files could overlap but serve different contexts.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the entire workflow from site scanning to deployment verification, with no obvious dead ends. All necessary operations for making a site agent-ready are present, including edge cases like x402 validation and credential verification.

Resources