Endpoint Diligence
Server Details
Trust scoring for x402 endpoints — "should my agent pay this?" check_endpoint runs live diligence: x402 spec-compliance probe, price sanity vs market percentiles, payTo wallet on-chain activity (Base), directory presence, infra hygiene. Returns 0-100 score with per-check evidence. compare_price positions any price vs category market data. Pay-per-call via x402: $0.02/call USDC on Base, no account or API key. tools/list free.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one performs comprehensive endpoint verification and scoring, the other focuses solely on price comparison. There is no overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'check_endpoint' and 'compare_price', making the naming predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for a domain like endpoint diligence, but it may be appropriately scoped for a very narrow use case.
The tools cover verification and price comparison, but potential gaps include listing endpoints, historical data, or more granular operations. The surface is minimal.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_endpointAInspect
Runs live diligence on an x402-metered endpoint before you pay it: verifies its 402 payment challenge is spec-compliant, checks the price against market baselines, inspects the payTo address on-chain (Base), checks third-party directory presence, and checks basic infra hygiene. Returns a 0-100 score, a pass/caution/fail verdict, and per-check evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses on-chain inspection, directory checks, and infra hygiene. Mentions return of score, verdict, and evidence. Lacks explicit statement on side effects or auth needs, but is fairly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first details actions, second states output. No filler or redundant phrasing. Efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Explains return format (0-100 score, pass/caution/fail, per-check evidence) despite no output schema. Covers parameter and overall behavior adequately for agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only parameter 'url' is described in schema as URI. Description adds that it's an 'x402-metered endpoint', giving context beyond schema. With 0% schema coverage, description compensates well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it performs live diligence on an x402-metered endpoint before payment, listing specific checks (compliance, price, address, directory, infra) and output (score, verdict, evidence). Distinguishes from sibling 'compare_price' by including price among many checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'before you pay it', providing clear context for when to use. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling, but the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_priceAInspect
Compares an x402 endpoint's price (or a given price/category pair) against market percentiles from our daily radar snapshot of the x402 ecosystem.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| priceUsd | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds behavioral context such as using a daily radar snapshot and the x402 ecosystem. However, it does not disclose important traits like whether it is read-only, error behavior, or authentication needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, front-loading the main action. It is concise, but could be structured to separate the two usage modes more clearly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given three optional parameters and no output schema, the description lacks details on what happens when no parameters are provided, expected output format, and error scenarios. It provides the core context but is incomplete for full understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It indicates that url corresponds to an endpoint price and that category and priceUsd form a pair, but does not clarify optionality or relationships fully. This adds some meaning but is insufficient for complete parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool compares a price against market percentiles using a daily radar snapshot. It specifies the resource (x402 endpoint price or given price/category pair) and verb (compares), distinguishing it from the sibling check_endpoint.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for comparing prices against market percentiles but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The context is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!