Skip to main content
Glama

code402

by io.github.89rat

Probe a URL for x402 payment terms

code402_probe_endpoint
Read-only

Send an unpaid GET to any public https URL and report whether it answers with a valid x402 402 challenge, plus normalized terms { scheme, network, amount (USDC base units), price (dollars), payTo, asset }. Use before budgeting a payment or to liveness-check a listing. No payment is ever sent. Private/internal addresses are rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic https URL of the endpoint to probe

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, non-destructive), the description adds crucial behavioral details: 'No payment is ever sent' and 'Private/internal addresses are rejected.' This informs the agent of limits and outcomes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two dense sentences cover action, output, usage, and safety. The information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete: it specifies the exact action, output structure, usage scenarios, and constraints. No gaps.

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?

The schema already fully describes the URL parameter with a pattern and description. The description adds extra constraint that private/internal addresses are rejected, which is not in the schema but is valuable for parameter handling.

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 clearly states the action: sends an unpaid GET to a URL and reports on the x402 challenge and normalized terms. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on probing rather than listing creation, health checks, or seller operations.

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?

Explicitly indicates when to use: 'Use before budgeting a payment or to liveness-check a listing.' It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the intended context is clear and practical.

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

All code402 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource or action: seller management, listing management, service discovery, health, reputation, analytics, invoice, probe, and trust. Even the two endpoint-checking tools (probe_endpoint and trust_check) serve clearly different purposes—one tests live challenges, the other queries an index.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a strict code402_verb_noun pattern with clear, consistent verbs (create, get, list, probe, register, trust). The naming is uniform and predictable, making tool selection straightforward.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose—a gateway for paid API listings and trust management. Each tool serves a distinct functional need without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: seller registration, listing creation/update, service discovery, analytics, invoicing, reputation, and trust checks. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit listing deletion or a standalone reputation verification tool, but these are either covered implicitly or out of scope for the MCP surface.

Resources