Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

zFinia Intelligence

by com.zfinia.api
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

x402 Endpoint Health

x402_endpoint_health

Is this paid endpoint answering right now? Returns whether it serves a payment challenge, how many well-formed priced offers it carries, which warnings would actually break a payment as opposed to merely making the call harder to construct, and a single payable_now flag. Reports only what was observed; it makes no judgement about the seller. Pay 4000 atomic USDC on Base via exact x402. MCP does not pay; it provides a challenge handoff.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "x402_endpoint_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesHTTPS URL of an x402 endpoint on a reviewed origin. Credentials, ports and fragments are refused.
bodyNoOptional JSON body to send with a POST probe.
methodNoMethod to probe with. Defaults to GET.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it says the tool reports only observations, warns that MCP does not pay, and explains that a challenge handoff is returned rather than payment being attempted. It still omits details such as timeout behavior, rate limits, or failure modes when the endpoint is unreachable.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core question and the returned signals, then explains the observed-only and no-payment behavior. It is mostly efficient, though the sentence about paying 4000 atomic USDC on Base is a little abrupt and could be clearer about whether it describes the endpoint's requirement or an action for the agent.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does: payment challenge presence, well-formed priced offer count, payment-breaking warnings, and payable_now. It is fairly complete for a health-probe tool, though it does not describe the exact response shape or error representation.

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 input schema already documents url, body, and method thoroughly. The description adds conceptual context about probing and payment challenges but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific resource and check: whether a paid x402 endpoint is answering now, and what payment-related observations it returns. It also distinguishes itself as an observational health probe that makes no judgement about the seller, though it does not explicitly name its closest siblings such as x402_endpoint_preflight or x402_merchant_readiness_audit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the opening question and by the note that MCP does not pay but provides a challenge handoff, which suggests it is a pre-payment diagnostic. However, there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing instructions.

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

All zFinia Intelligence toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources