MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit

Webhook test inbox

webhook_inbox_create

Create a temporary URL that records any HTTP request sent to it (method, path, query, headers, body ≤16 KB, up to 100 requests, kept 24 h); read them back with the secret token. For testing webhooks and callbacks. Free: 3/day. [served by tools.moneytools.dev]

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "webhook_inbox_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which leaves the agent guessing about scale and cost. The description supplies hard behavioral facts the annotations cannot: 16 KB body cap, 100-request cap, 24-hour retention, secret-token access to recorded data, and a 3/day free quota. That is exactly the extra context this dimension rewards.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short usage clause and a rate-limit note, front-loaded with the main action and then the constraints in descending order of importance. No sentence is filler; even the hosting note is compact and placed last.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not document return values, and the caps, retention, and quota make it substantially complete for a no-parameter tool. The one remaining gap is that it does not state that the secret token / URL are returned on creation, though 'read them back with the secret token' strongly implies it.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. The description does usefully explain the created resource's properties (URL, recording capacity, TTL, secret token for retrieval), which is arguably parameter-adjacent context rather than parameter semantics.

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?

The description names a concrete verb and resource ('Create a temporary URL that records any HTTP request sent to it') and immediately quantifies the scope: method, path, query, headers, body ≤16 KB, up to 100 requests, kept 24 h. An agent knows exactly what artifact is produced and what its limits are, which distinguishes it from generic HTTP or inspection siblings.

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?

"For testing webhooks and callbacks" and "create a temporary URL" give a clear situational context, and the 3/day free quota warns about cost. However, it never names the sibling webhook_inbox_read, instead saying data is read back 'with the secret token', so the agent must infer the retrieval tool from the sibling list rather than being routed to it explicitly.

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

All MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit 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?