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

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

Bitcoin address balance

btc_address

Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirmed and pending BTC balance (and USD from mempool.space prices), tx count, address type and reuse for any Bitcoin address. Source: mempool.space public API (blockstream.info / mempool.emzy.de fallback). Free: 10 calls/day; then $0.001/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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "btc_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	BTC address

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real value: upstream data sources, two fallback providers, and the 10-calls/day free tier with x402/API-key payment paths. It does not cover freshness/caching or invalid-address behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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 payload is front-loaded in the first sentence, with source and payment details after it. The payment mechanics sentence is dense and plumbing-heavy, but it is genuinely actionable for an agent deciding whether to spend a call.

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, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers cost, provenance, and fallback behavior. The only meaningful omission is error/failure handling for malformed or unknown addresses.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, including an example address, so the schema already does the work. The description adds only that the address can be any Bitcoin address, with no format or network qualifiers beyond that.

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?

The description states a specific resource and enumerates returned fields: confirmed/pending BTC balance, USD conversion, tx count, address type, and reuse, scoped to 'any Bitcoin address'. It is clearly a Bitcoin-specific lookup distinct from btc_fees, though it does not explicitly state how it differs from the sibling address_profile.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'for any Bitcoin address'; there is no statement of when to pick this over address_profile or address_validate, and no exclusions. The rate-limit/payment note gives practical call-time context but is not selection guidance.

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?