Lumière PayCheck

How to get a full trust report

get_full_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get instructions for buying the detailed paid report on one x402 endpoint (score breakdown, current price quote, wallet and price history, test-payment results). Returns the report URL, price, and network; it doesn't buy the report itself. The report is an x402 endpoint that your agent pays with any x402 client. Use it only when the free check_endpoint result isn't enough and the user wants the full history. The response also lists the other paid x402 checks (wallet risk, batch grades, watch alerts), paid the same way. Endpoints we don't monitor return 404 on the report URL and are never charged. API docs: https://github.com/Book0fEli/lumiere-paycheck/blob/main/docs/api.md

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "get_full_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Full URL of the x402 endpoint you want the paid report for, including path

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No
`price`	No
`network`	No
`payment`	No
`forTeams`	No	Short note about team plans (per-agent keys, spend limits, audit trail)
`available`	No	false when paid reports aren't enabled
`reportUrl`	No	Request this URL with an x402 client to buy the report
`otherPaidChecks`	No	Other pay-per-call x402 checks, paid the same way

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 6, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / otherPaidChecks

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Other pay-per-call x402 checks, paid the same way",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "price": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "request": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "what": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "what",
+      "request",
+      "price"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description goes further by disclosing that the call itself does not perform the purchase, that payment happens through an x402 client on the returned report URL, and that unmonitored endpoints return 404 and are never charged. That is genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations, though actual billing mechanics (rate limits, cost of the quote call) remain unspecified.

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?

Purpose and the critical 'doesn't buy the report' caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the later sentences add routing, pricing, and edge-case value. It is a dense paragraph whose later clauses, such as the catalog of other paid checks, are slightly tangential to the core call.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still flags what the response contains plus the 404 edge case and a docs link. For a one-parameter read tool with annotations, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'url' fully including the path requirement. The description implies the URL is an x402 endpoint but adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get instructions for buying the detailed paid report on one x402 endpoint') and names the exact contents returned (score breakdown, price quote, wallet and price history). It explicitly distinguishes its scope from the free check_endpoint result, so an agent can separate it from its siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use it only when the free check_endpoint result isn't enough and the user wants the full history'), names the alternative by name, and clarifies the downstream action ('doesn't buy the report itself'). Nothing about when or when-not to call it is left to inference.

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

All Lumière PayCheck 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.