EdgeScreen x402 Security Screening

by dev.workers.asostudio.aso-x402-screen

screen_domain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Deterministic IDN Punycode, Unicode UTS #39 homoglyph, and typosquatting lookalike detection for domains and handles. Requires $0.002 (2000 atomic) Base USDC on eip155:8453 via x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header.

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": {
      "brand": "<brand>"
    },
    "name": "screen_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brand`	Yes	Target brand for deterministic homoglyph, Punycode, and typosquatting comparison.
`domain`	No	Single candidate domain shorthand (ASCII, Unicode IDN, or Punycode xn--...) to inspect.
`handle`	No	Single candidate social handle shorthand (@handle or bare handle) to inspect.
`domains`	No	Candidate domains (ASCII, Unicode IDN, or Punycode xn--...) to inspect.
`handles`	No	Candidate social handles (@handle or bare handle) to inspect.
`candidate`	No	Single candidate domain or social handle shorthand to auto-classify and inspect.
`candidates`	No	Mixed candidate domains or social handles to auto-classify and inspect.
`officialDomains`	No	Optional list of verified official domains for the target brand.
`officialHandles`	No	Optional list of verified official social handles for the target brand.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world). The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the operation is deterministic and requires a paid x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header with $0.002 USDC on Base. However, it says nothing about response shape, what happens on insufficient payment, or limits beyond the 25-item schema cap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the capability and followed by the hard payment precondition. The first sentence is dense with stacked jargon but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a nine-parameter, no-output-schema screening tool, the description covers purpose and cost but leaves the result semantics (what detections and confidence data come back, how to interpret findings) entirely unexplained. That gap matters more here because no output schema exists to compensate.

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 each parameter already carries its own description and the baseline is 3. The description adds no clarification of the relationship between 'brand' and the candidate variants, nor whether the shorthand forms are mutually exclusive or additive.

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?

Names a specific operation (deterministic lookalike/typosquatting detection) on a specific resource (domains and handles), and enumerates the techniques (IDN Punycode, UTS #39 homoglyph, typosquatting). The domain-and-handle scope also implicitly separates it from siblings like screen_url, screen_address, and screen_secret.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No statement of when to use this versus screen_url or screen_address, and no guidance on which of the overlapping candidate parameters (domain vs domains vs candidate vs candidates) to pick. Only a payment precondition is given.

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

All EdgeScreen x402 Security Screening 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?