Laso Finance

pay_x402_endpoint

Pay ANY external x402-paywalled endpoint from your managed agent wallet: the target's 402 challenge is settled in USDC and the response body is returned, with the settlement transaction as txHash. The wallet balance can take up to a minute to reflect a payment, so confirm with txHash rather than an immediate balance read. Use the guardrail arguments to pin what you agreed to pay. For Laso's own paid routes, prefer their dedicated tools instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Full https URL of the x402 endpoint to call and pay.
`body`	No	JSON request body (for POST/PUT).
`method`	No	HTTP method (default GET).
`params`	No	Query parameters to append to the URL.
`auth_token`	No	Laso credential. Only if the MCP connection has no Authorization header.
`expected_asset`	No	Refuse to settle in any other asset (e.g. a USDC mint/contract address).
`expected_pay_to`	No	Refuse to settle to any other receiving address.
`max_amount_usdc`	No	Refuse to settle if the endpoint asks for more USDC than this.
`expected_network`	No	Refuse to settle on any other network (CAIP-2 id).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 26, 2026
- changedOutput schema / (root)
```
Previous value: -{
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
```
First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the settlement action, USDC asset, returned txHash, and the balance-update delay. It does not cover failure/error behavior, but the core financial side effect is clearly stated.

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?

Four focused sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the balance-lag warning, guardrail guidance, and the routing note about Laso's own routes. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it explains the return value (response body + txHash), the settlement behavior, and guardrails. It could add error/failure behavior, but nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds useful context by referring to guardrail arguments, but it does not substantially expand on individual parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: paying external x402-paywalled endpoints from the managed agent wallet, settling in USDC, and returning the response body and txHash. It also differentiates from Laso's own paid routes, making the tool's scope clear against the large sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly tells the agent to use guardrail arguments to pin agreed payment terms and to prefer dedicated tools for Laso's own paid routes. This is a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use instruction.

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

All Laso Finance 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?