endpoint-diligence
Server Details
Live x402 endpoint trust/diligence check before you pay it. $0.02/call via x402.
- 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 a comprehensive diligence check on an endpoint, while the other is solely for price comparison. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_endpoint, compare_price), making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a domain that could include additional operations like listing endpoints or fetching historical data. However, the narrow focus on diligence and price comparison makes the count acceptable but borderline.
The tools cover core diligence and price comparison, but there are gaps such as missing functionality for endpoint discovery, historical trends, or detailed reporting. The surface is incomplete for a fully featured endpoint diligence server.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully covers behavior: it performs live checks, on-chain inspection, etc., and returns results. It doesn't mention side effects like network requests or error handling, but the actions are implicit.
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 two sentences: first lists all checks, second summarizes output. No wasted words, front-loaded with main action.
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?
Despite no output schema, the description states return values (score, verdict, evidence) and lists checks. It could mention error cases but is otherwise complete for a single-parameter tool.
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 coverage is 0% but the description implicitly explains the 'url' parameter as the endpoint to check. With only one parameter and clear context, the meaning is sufficiently conveyed.
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 does live diligence on an x402-metered endpoint, listing specific checks (compliance, price, on-chain, directory, hygiene). It distinguishes from sibling 'compare_price' which only compares prices.
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 indicates when to use: 'before you pay it', implying it's for verification before payment. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but context with sibling is 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 carries full burden. It discloses the data source (daily radar snapshot) and comparison type but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects.
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?
A single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with no extraneous information.
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 no output schema and 3 optional parameters, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks details about return format, error conditions, or valid parameter combinations.
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%. The description adds meaning by explaining that url provides an endpoint's price and that priceUsd and category can be used together for a custom price/category pair. However, it does not clarify required combinations or constraints beyond the schema.
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 uses the specific verb 'compares' and identifies the resource (x402 endpoint price vs market percentiles). It provides enough detail to distinguish it from the sibling 'check_endpoint', though it does not explicitly differentiate.
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 when comparing a price against market percentiles but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it.
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!