geld machen x402 agent utilities

Facilitator Dry-Run: Would CDP Accept This 402 Envelope?

facilitator-dry-run

Read-onlyIdempotent

Dry-run an x402 payment payload + requirements against the facilitator /verify path before going live. Use when you build an x402 seller and want to know if payments will verify. Not for auditing a receipt after payment (use payment-receipt-auditor). Returns a free sample plus the paid URL and pay steps (no charge here); the full result costs $0.05 Base USDC via x402.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No	Input for the paid endpoint: JSON with payment_payload and payment_requirements.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sku`	Yes
`note`	No
`payTo`	No
`price`	No
`method`	No
`network`	No
`paid_url`	Yes
`how_to_pay`	Yes
`teaser_url`	No
`your_input`	No
`free_teaser`	No	Free sample output of this SKU (truncated); null if unavailable.
`ready_request`	No	Exact paid HTTP request (method, url with your input, optional json_body) to send with an x402 client.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / ready_request

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Exact paid HTTP request (method, url with your input, optional json_body) to send with an x402 client."
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 6, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / free_teaser

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Free sample output of this SKU (truncated); null if unavailable."
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / query / description

Previous value: -"Optional input (e.g. url / address / text) to pass to the paid endpoint as ?q= or JSON body."New value: +"Input for the paid endpoint: JSON with payment_payload and payment_requirements."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 6, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "how_to_pay": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "method": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "network": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "paid_url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "payTo": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "price": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "sku": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "teaser_url": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "your_input": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "sku",
+    "paid_url",
+    "how_to_pay"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the pricing model (free sample, full result $0.05 Base USDC via x402) and that this call itself is uncharted by saying 'no charge here'. It stops short of detailing verification failure modes or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences front-loaded with the action, then usage, then cost/return behavior. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With rich annotations and a declared output schema, the description only needs to add purpose, routing, and cost context, all of which it provides. Nothing an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly is missing.

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% with a single documented 'query' parameter, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline of 3 when the schema is complete.

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 (dry-run), resource (x402 payment payload + requirements), and target (facilitator /verify path) before going live. It explicitly names the sibling payment-receipt-auditor as the thing it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use (building an x402 seller, checking whether payments will verify) and when-not (auditing a receipt after payment, routed to payment-receipt-auditor). Both the trigger condition and the alternative are spelled out.

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

All geld machen x402 agent utilities tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?