Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ZERO Payment Guard

by host.beacon.worker.zero-payment-guard
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Company/domain enrichment ($0.002 USDC on Base via x402)

domain_enrich
Read-onlyIdempotent

Paid $0.002 per call (x402, USDC on Base). Domain, URL or work email to a company profile from public sources: name, description, logo, social profiles, homepage contact emails/phones; email provider from MX, SPF/DMARC policy; DNS provider; SaaS signals from TXT verifications; RDAP registrar, creation date, age, expiry; website tech stack.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "domain_enrich"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNofalse = skip homepage fetch (DNS+RDAP only)
domainYesDomain (stripe.com), URL, or work email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds real behavior beyond the annotations: an explicit per-call price, the payment rail and currency, and the fact that results come from 'public sources' via DNS/RDAP/MX/TXT lookups plus an optional homepage fetch. That tells the agent this is an external, cost-incurring network call. It does not cover failure/payment-refund behavior or rate limits.

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?

Cost and payment rail are front-loaded in a short first clause, then the output facets follow in one dense but scannable list. No filler sentences, though the semicolon-separated facet chain is information-heavy and could be grouped more cleanly.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the profile fields and their data sources. Combined with readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only error handling and output structure (flat vs nested) remain unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both the 'domain' input formats and the 'site=false' shortcut, so the description largely restates them. It does add indirect meaning by listing homepage contact emails/phones as an output facet, hinting at what is lost when the homepage fetch is skipped, but never states that trade-off explicitly.

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 names the exact transformation (domain/URL/work email -> company profile) and enumerates the returned facets (MX/SPF/DMARC, DNS provider, TXT SaaS signals, RDAP registrar/age/expiry, tech stack), so an agent knows precisely what it produces. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like company_brief or page_extract, which overlap in the 'company info' space.

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?

Leading with '$0.002 per call (x402, USDC on Base)' implicitly signals a paid, wallet-gated precondition, which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no pointer to x402_preflight or usdc_payment_check for payment setup, and no statement of when company_brief would be preferable.

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

All ZERO Payment Guard toolsInspect
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