Skip to main content
Glama

x402-list-mcp

by com.x402-list

x402 service change events

x402_change_events
Read-only

Call this before you trust anything you cached about a service, and right after a payment failed for no obvious reason: the monitor's log of what moved under you. Returns payTo, price and 402-schema changes observed on listed services, most recent first, in exactly three event types (payto_changed, price_changed, schema_changed). Filter with service (the slug), type, and days (1 to 365, default 90). Caveats: prices here are atomic token amounts, never dollars, and every payTo is masked by design, so the feed reports THAT the payout address changed, never the address. Free and read-only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLookback window in days, 1 to 365 (default 90). Events older than the window are not in the feed.
pageNo1-based page index into the filtered event set (see total_pages).
typeNoRestrict to one kind of change: 'payto_changed' (the payout address set changed), 'price_changed' (at least one endpoint's price changed), 'schema_changed' (the 402 envelope gained or lost accepts entries or priced endpoints). Omit for all three.
serviceNoService slug to restrict the feed to, e.g. 'exa' (the same slug x402_get_service takes). Omit for changes across every listed service.
per_pageNoEvents per page, 1 to 100 (default 25). Each event carries the full before/after envelope snapshots, so a large page is heavy.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral caveats: payTo values are masked by design, prices are atomic token amounts not dollars, and the feed reports exactly three event types. This goes well beyond the annotations and sets accurate expectations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact yet dense: every sentence adds value, the trigger scenarios are front-loaded, and the caveats are tucked efficiently at the end. No filler or repetition.

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, the description still explains the return nature, event types, ordering, filtering options, units, and masking behavior. Combined with the fully described input schema and annotations, an agent has enough to select and call the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds some restated context for service, type, and days, but does not meaningfully explain page or per_page beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete resource and operation: it returns observed payTo, price, and 402-schema changes on listed services, framed as a monitor log. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that assess, search, or fetch current service state.

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 gives explicit, contextual use cases: call before trusting cached data about a service and right after a payment fails for no obvious reason. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but it clearly states when this tool is the right choice.

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

All x402-list-mcp 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

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: searching, retrieving full records, ranking, paid assessment, health checks, change monitoring, and volume tracking. Even search vs find_best_service are clearly separated by purpose (list vs ranked recommendation).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent x402_verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_services, get_service, find_best_service). Snake_case is used uniformly, and verbs are descriptive and distinct.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is well-scoped for a directory/evaluation service. Each tool serves a distinct phase in the user workflow: discovery, comparison, health verification, and paid assessment, with no redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers discovery (search, find_best), detailed lookup (get_service), health checks, change monitoring, and even the paid assessment workflow. Minor gap: no explicit bulk list or category browsing, but search with filters covers that. No dead ends.

Resources