x402 agent toolkit: service finder, payment safety, Solana & web tools

by dev.workers.moneytools.x402-pay-precheck

Token approvals + revoke plan

allowance_revoke_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find risky ERC-20 approvals for a wallet (default: common tokens × 20 well-known routers/spenders, or your own lists) and get UNSIGNED approve(spender,0) revoke transactions. Read-only. Free: 10 calls/day; then $0.003/call via x402 (MCP params._meta["x402/payment"] or HTTP) or X-API-Key credits. [served by tools.moneytools.dev]

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "owner": "<owner>"
    },
    "name": "allowance_revoke_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes	chain name
`owner`	Yes	wallet address
`tokens`	No	comma list of token addresses or symbols (USDC,USDT,...)
`spenders`	No	comma list of spender addresses

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description resolves the apparent tension of a 'revoke' tool by stating the transactions are UNSIGNED, i.e. nothing is broadcast or destroyed. It also discloses rate limits (10 free calls/day, then $0.003/call) and the payment path (x402 via _meta or HTTP, or X-API-Key), which is operational context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first clause, with safety, cost, and payment details following. It is dense but each clause carries real information; the provider tag in brackets is the only marginal element.

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 return shape need not be described, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage handle safety and parameters. The definition covers cost, auth, and default scoping, leaving only minor things (e.g. chain support breadth) unstated.

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 the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning the schema lacks: the default behavior of the optional tokens and spenders parameters (common tokens x 20 well-known routers/spenders), which tells the agent it can omit them and what it will get.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: find risky ERC-20 approvals for a wallet and return unsigned approve(spender,0) revoke transactions. An agent immediately knows what comes back. It does not name or contrast itself with the sibling allowance_setup, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies the use case (scan a wallet for dangerous allowances, then get a revoke plan) and describes default scoping versus supplying your own token/spender lists. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing away from sibling approval/allowance tools, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

All x402 agent toolkit: service finder, payment safety, Solana & web tools 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?