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

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

MCP tool-definition linter

mcp_tools_lint

Read-onlyIdempotent

Connect to an MCP server (streamable HTTP) or take a tools/list array and lint every tool: names, descriptions, JSON Schema, required params, annotations; score + fixes. 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

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": "mcp_tools_lint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	MCP endpoint
`tools`	No	or the tools/list JSON

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety bar is low, and the description still adds the details that matter most for an agent: a free tier of 10 calls/day, then $0.003/call, and the exact payment channels (x402 via params._meta or HTTP header, or X-API-Key credits). Disclosing cost and auth mechanics up front is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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 capability statement is front-loaded and every clause (inputs, what is checked, output, pricing) carries information. The single semicolon-chained sentence is dense, and the trailing '[served by tools.moneytools.dev]' host tag is marginal, but nothing is genuinely wasted.

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 values need no explanation, yet the description still notes it produces 'score + fixes'. Input modes, auth, cost and rate limits are all covered for a read-only linter. What remains absent is error behavior (e.g., unreachable endpoint, malformed tools/list) and whether provided 'tools' override a fetched list.

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 baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by framing the two parameters as mutually exclusive alternatives ('...or take a tools/list array'), a constraint the schema's flat property list does not express, and by tying 'url' specifically to a streamable HTTP transport.

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 specific verb and resource ('lint every tool' over MCP tool definitions) and enumerates exactly what is checked: names, descriptions, JSON Schema, required params, annotations. The '[served by ...]' tag and the 'MCP server' framing also separate it from the sibling openapi_lint, which targets OpenAPI specs rather than MCP endpoints.

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?

It clearly establishes the two acceptable input modes (a streamable-HTTP MCP endpoint URL or a raw tools/list array), which is implicit guidance on how to call it. It never says when to prefer this over a sibling linter or what to do if both inputs are supplied, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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?