Wisely x402 Agent-Payment Infrastructure

wisely_doctor

Return public-safe endpoint wiring, discovery, and verifier readiness checks.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`type`	No
`asset`	No
`input`	No	Public-safe request body/input for a hosted service or endpoint. Never include secrets, raw cards, wallet keys, passwords, or private account tokens.
`items`	No
`query`	No
`since`	No
`itemId`	No
`accepts`	No
`content`	No	Public-safe creator content for preview/import. Do not include secrets, private student data, or copyrighted material you do not own.
`network`	No
`audience`	No	Optional audience hint for wisely_start_here / wisely_get_playbook / wisely_agent_instructions.
`payoutId`	No
`platform`	No	Optional OS/platform hint for local bridge setup, e.g. windows, mac, linux.
`amountUsd`	No
`creatorId`	No
`fromAsset`	No
`localPort`	No	Optional localhost port for the local commerce bridge MCP server. Defaults to 4027.
`receiptId`	No
`sellerUrl`	No	Third-party x402 paid resource URL to probe for HTTP 402 payment requirements.
`serviceId`	No
`sessionId`	No	Wallet handoff/payment session id returned by x402_wallet_handoff/connect_wallet.
`toAddress`	No
`sellerBody`	No	Public-safe POST body for an external x402 seller. Never include cookies, bearer tokens, wallet secrets, private keys, card data, or account passwords.
`contentType`	No
`fromAddress`	No
`fromNetwork`	No
`manifestUrl`	No
`paidActions`	No
`endpointSlug`	No
`sellerMethod`	No	Use POST for paid APIs that need a public-safe body before returning 402.
`payoutAddress`	No
`serverJsonUrl`	No
`idempotencyKey`	No	Stable retry key for paid invokes and wallet handoff sessions.
`paymentPayload`	No
`includeExamples`	No	Set false to request a shorter playbook response.
`fromTokenAddress`	No
`preferredNetwork`	No	Preferred payment network for wallet handoff, e.g. eip155:8453 or base.
`defaultEntitlement`	No
`paymentRequirement`	No
`paymentRequirements`	No
`returnSignedPayment`	No	Alias for includeSignedPayment.
`includeSignedPayment`	No	For x402_payment_session_status, include the signed X-PAYMENT payload when the user has signed.

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns only 'public-safe' data, implying no secrets are exposed, and the verb 'Return' hints at a read-only operation. But with empty annotations, the agent has no information about side effects, network calls, auth needs, or error behaviors.

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 a single sentence, but it is drastically under-specified for a tool with 43 optional parameters and no output schema. The brevity is not effective conciseness; it omits essential usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the large parameter space, empty annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the nature of the checks, expected inputs, or the shape of the return value, leaving the agent to guess.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33%, and the description does not reference any of the 43 parameters. The agent cannot infer which parameters are relevant for a diagnostic invocation, nor how to construct a valid request.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource as 'public-safe endpoint wiring, discovery, and verifier readiness checks.' However, the phrasing is jargon-heavy and doesn't clearly differentiate from several sibling status/check tools like x402_rail_status or x402_state_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool. It does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selecting this over sibling checklist tools.

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

All Wisely x402 Agent-Payment Infrastructure tools Inspect

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

C2.5/5.0

Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is riddled with aliases and duplicates (e.g., start_here, wisely_start_here, get_playbook, agent_instructions, readme, wisely_get_playbook, wisely_agent_instructions all serve the same purpose). Dozens of status tools and setup aliases overlap heavily, making it nearly impossible for an agent to select the right tool without testing.

Naming Consistency2/5

There is a mix of x402_ and wisely_ prefixes, plus unprefixed generic tools like start_here, connect_wallet, and readme. Alias names diverge from their canonical names (e.g., connect_wallet vs x402_wallet_handoff), and while snake_case is consistent, the pattern is not predictable across the full set.

Tool Count1/5

65 tools is far beyond what is typically appropriate for an MCP server (3-15). The count is inflated by aliases and many near-identical status/check tools, creating a bloated surface that is unnecessarily heavy and confusing for agents.

Completeness3/5

Core payment, wallet, receipt, and quote workflows are well covered. However, there are significant gaps in actual builder endpoint management (only handoff instructions, no direct create/update/delete tools) and creator catalog lifecycle (preview and onboarding handoff but no publish/update/delete tools), leaving some workflows as dead ends.

wisely_doctor

Input Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources