zFinia Intelligence

x402 Merchant Readiness Audit

x402_merchant_readiness_audit

Is this merchant safe to depend on? Audits up to ten x402 endpoints in one call and returns a verdict — ready, partially ready or not ready — with the specific blockers. Checks each endpoint serves a payable challenge with well-formed terms and a declared input schema, and adds the cross-endpoint check no single probe can make: whether every endpoint pays the same recipient. Never pays anything. Pay 25000 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": {
      "endpoints": "<endpoints>"
    },
    "name": "x402_merchant_readiness_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`endpoints`	Yes	Up to 10 endpoints. Give a descriptor with the request that endpoint actually needs — probing a paid API with an empty POST reports it unpayable when it is merely undocumented here.
`expected_pay_to`	No	Optional. The recipient you expect every endpoint to pay; a difference becomes a blocker.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it states probing never spends funds, that the tool itself costs 25000 atomic USDC on Base via x402, and that the MCP only hands off a challenge rather than paying. It does not disclose latency or partial-failure behavior if some of the ten endpoints error. The juxtaposition of 'Never pays anything' with 'Pay 25000 atomic USDC' is potentially confusing, though it resolves on reading (probes are free; the tool is priced).

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?

Front-loads the question and verdict, then the checks, then the payment model — logical order with little waste. The two payment sentences are slightly compressed and create the apparent pay/never-pay tension, costing a point.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the returned verdict and its blocker detail. Combined with explicit non-payment probing behavior and pricing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds real semantics: the ten-endpoint cap and the cross-endpoint recipient consistency role of expected_pay_to. It does not restate the string-vs-descriptor form, which the schema already documents thoroughly with an example.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (audits up to ten x402 endpoints) and the concrete output (a ready / partially ready / not ready verdict with blockers). The line 'the cross-endpoint check no single probe can make' implicitly separates it from single-endpoint siblings like x402_endpoint_health and x402_endpoint_preflight.

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?

Frames the decision it answers ('Is this merchant safe to depend on?') and scopes use to batches of endpoints that must pay a consistent recipient. It does not name the alternative single-probe tools or state when not to use this aggregate audit, leaving that routing to inference.

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

All zFinia Intelligence tools Inspect

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

Need Help?