Agent Utils (x402)

by dev.workers.revenue-agent-jw.agent-utils-x402-production

Known-answer x402 payment fixture (signed receipt)

fixture_settle

Read-onlyIdempotent

Known-answer x402 payment fixture for auditor and client self-tests. A paid call settles exactly at $0.001 USDC and returns the published known answer plus a signed receipt (payer, amount, tx, server time). Useful to prove a wallet and x402 client work end to end. Failed payments are not charged and return a machine-readable error. Spec: GET /v0/fixture/spec. PAID: $0.001 USDC per call on Base via x402 (MCP transport: retry with params._meta["x402/payment"]). Same tool over plain HTTP: GET /v1/fixture/settle.

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": "fixture_settle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior on top: the exact cost, that failed payments are not charged and return a machine-readable error, the retry mechanism via params._meta["x402/payment"], and a parallel HTTP endpoint. One caveat is that a tool that moves $0.001 USDC per call is not obviously 'read-only/idempotent' in a billing sense, and the description does not reconcile that tension, so it falls short of full transparency.

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?

Five dense sentences, all load-bearing, front-loaded with purpose and price before the spec URL and HTTP alternative. No filler or restatement of the title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the receipt contents and the failure-mode response, and it covers pricing, transport and an alternate route. For a zero-parameter fixture tool, that is everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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?

With zero declared parameters the baseline is a 4, and the description goes beyond that by documenting an out-of-schema transport parameter (params._meta["x402/payment"]) that an agent must know to pay for the call. It does not give the payment object's internal shape, which leaves a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a known-answer x402 payment fixture that settles at exactly $0.001 USDC and returns a published answer plus a signed receipt. It also names the concrete return fields (payer, amount, tx, server time) and the spec endpoint, so an agent can distinguish it from a generic x402 check tool without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'for auditor and client self-tests' and 'useful to prove a wallet and x402 client work end to end'. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All Agent Utils (x402) 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?