Live x402 endpoint trust/diligence check before you pay it. $0.02/call via x402.
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.
Average 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_endpoint performs a comprehensive diligence, compare_price compares prices to market percentiles, and reseller_check identifies possible upstream API resale. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: check_endpoint, compare_price, reseller_check. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only 3 tools, the set is well-scoped for the niche domain of x402 endpoint diligence. Each tool earns its place, covering the essential operations without being too few or too many.
The tools cover the core diligence workflow: comprehensive check, price comparison, and reseller detection. There are no critical gaps, though a tool to fetch raw endpoint metadata without the full check could be a minor addition.
check_endpointAInspectRuns 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, and detects possible upstream API resale with evidence-based markup estimates. Returns a 0-100 score, a pass/caution/fail verdict, and per-check evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs live checks, performs multiple verifications, and returns a score and evidence. It does not explicitly state if it is read-only or any rate limits/costs, but given the input (URL only) and nature (diligence), it is likely non-destructive and safe.
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?
Three concise sentences: first sets context, second enumerates checks, third defines output. No redundant words. All information is front-loaded and efficiently packaged.
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 the tool's complexity (multiple checks, scoring) and lack of output schema, the description covers inputs and outputs adequately. It could benefit from detailing the evidence structure, but it provides sufficient context for tool selection.
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 one parameter (url) with no schema description (0% coverage). The tool description explains the URL's purpose (endpoint to check) but adds no additional constraints beyond the URI format. It provides context but lacks detailed validation hints or examples.
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 defines the tool's purpose: running live diligence on an x402-metered endpoint before payment. It lists specific checks (spec compliance, price baselines, on-chain address, directory presence, infra hygiene, resale detection) and outputs (score, verdict, per-check evidence), distinguishing it from siblings like compare_price and reseller_check.
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 states 'before you pay it,' indicating the primary use case. It implicitly suggests when not to use (after payment), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Sibling tools exist for specific subspects, but no guidance on when to prefer them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
compare_priceAInspectCompares 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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the data source ('daily radar snapshot') and the comparative nature ('against market percentiles'), but lacks details on side effects (likely none), authentication needs, error handling, or rate limits. The description provides some behavioral context but is incomplete.
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 that is concise, well-structured, and front-loaded. Every part contributes meaning: the action, the two usage cases, and the comparison target. There is no redundant or unnecessary 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?
No output schema exists, yet the description does not explain the return structure beyond 'market percentiles'. While it covers input usage adequately for a simple tool, the lack of return format details reduces completeness. Sibling tool context is absent but not critical.
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 effectively explains the meaning of the three parameters: url for the endpoint, category and priceUsd for the price/category pair. While it doesn't give formats or constraints beyond the schema, it adds essential usage semantics for each parameter.
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 an x402 endpoint's price or a given price/category pair against market percentiles. The verb 'compares' and specific resources (price, percentiles) distinguish it from sibling tools like check_endpoint and reseller_check, which likely serve different purposes.
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 explicitly outlines two usage modes: providing a url to get an endpoint's price, or providing a category and priceUsd to compare a given price. This gives clear context on when to use each input combination, though it does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
reseller_checkBInspectFree possible-reseller preview. Matches an endpoint's live unpaid 402 description/schema, or a supplied description and price, against a dated catalog of well-known upstream APIs and reports confidence, matched signals, and documented markup math without asserting resale as fact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| priceUsd | No | ||
| description | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses it is free, matches against a 'dated catalog', and reports confidence/signals without asserting resale. However, it omits details on limitations (e.g., catalog age, error handling, rate limits) and does not clarify non-destructive nature beyond implication.
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, complex sentence. It front-loads key info ('Free possible-reseller preview') but packs many clauses, reducing readability. Could be split into shorter sentences for clarity.
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 sparse annotations, the description explains the tool's function and reports confidence, signals, and markup math. However, it lacks details on output format, error conditions, and interpretation of results, leaving gaps for an agent to understand completeness.
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%, but the description explains parameters indirectly: 'url' for endpoint, 'description' and 'priceUsd' for supplied data. It mentions 'matches an endpoint's live unpaid 402 description/schema, or a supplied description and price', providing some meaning, but fails to explicitly map each parameter to its role.
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 is a 'possible-reseller preview' that matches endpoint data against a catalog of upstream APIs, reporting confidence and signals. It specifies the verb 'matches' and the resource 'reseller preview', distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_endpoint' and 'compare_price' by focusing on reseller detection without asserting facts.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!