Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

SCRIPTMASTERLABS — x402 Gateway

by com.scriptmasterlabs
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

regime_scan_ticker

SML REGIME SCAN single ticker (PAID $0.02 USDC on Base via x402). Same engine as regime_scan_board for any one US stock or ETF, on the board or not: regime, all 8 family readings with their vote, setup (or why there is none), score, the checks that passed and the ones missing, trigger / invalidation / next level, the setup type's measured history and the live price vs levels. Starts with a one-sentence answer. Use for: checking one ticker against the regime-first, one-per-family stack. Don't use when: you need raw OHLC, intraday bars, crypto spot, or execution. Not financial advice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "regime_scan_ticker"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesUS stock/ETF ticker, e.g. NVDA, SPY, AMC.
payment_headerNoBase64 X-PAYMENT EIP-3009 payload (standard rail) for the tool price in USDC on Base.
wallet_addressNoAgent wallet address (informational).
payment_tx_hashNoBase USDC tx hash (sovereign rail) paying the tool price to the canonical SML receiver.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false but readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false-adjacent behavior is only partial; the description adds the crucial context that each call costs $0.02 USDC on Base via x402, which explains the non-read-only hint and the payment parameters. It also discloses that results begin with a one-sentence `answer` and closes with a "Not financial advice" disclaimer. It does not cover failure modes, retry/payment-rejection behavior, or rate limits, keeping it short of a 5.

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 name and price, then a dense but well-ordered output inventory, followed by explicit "Use for" / "Don't use when" blocks that make it scannable. The middle sentence runs long as a single comma-chain of returned fields, which costs a bit of readability but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and a 4-parameter paid tool, the description carries the burden well: it enumerates the response contents, names the leading `answer` field, states cost and payment rail, and defines scope boundaries against siblings. An agent has everything needed to decide, pay for, and correctly interpret the call.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: the exact price and currency ($0.02 USDC on Base via x402) that the payment_header and payment_tx_hash parameters must satisfy, and the ticker domain restriction ("US stock or ETF, on the board or not"). It still doesn't clarify the relationship between the two payment rails (standard vs. sovereign), which the schema only hints at.

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 and resource ("SML REGIME SCAN single ticker") and immediately contrasts scope with the sibling "regime_scan_board" — one ticker vs. board. It also names the return contents (regime, 8 family readings, setup, score, trigger/invalidation), so an agent knows exactly what it gets 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing is present: "Use for: checking one ticker against the regime-first, one-per-family stack" and "Don't use when: you need raw OHLC, intraday bars, crypto spot, or execution." The exclusions map cleanly onto the sibling tool set (e.g., omnigate_runtime_execute for execution), leaving no ambiguity about when to pick this tool.

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

All SCRIPTMASTERLABS — x402 Gateway toolsInspect
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