Lumière PayCheck

List x402 sellers by verdict

list_sellers

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the sellers behind the monitored x402 endpoints, grouped by domain, with each seller's endpoint count, verdict mix (proceed, caution, avoid, free, insufficient_data, bulk_listing), passing and paid-tested counts, and best grade. Use it to find which providers have trustworthy endpoints, search a provider by domain, or see who has endpoints to avoid. Open one seller's endpoints with seller_endpoints; for a single endpoint use check_endpoint. Read-only and free; the same data as lumierepaycheck.org/sellers, refreshed every few minutes.

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": "list_sellers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sort`	No	Order: most endpoints (default), most passing, most paid-tested, most to avoid, or by name
`limit`	No	Sellers per page, 1-50 (default 20)
`query`	No	Part of a seller's domain to search for, e.g. 'weather' or 'x402node.dev'
`offset`	No	Skip this many sellers, for paging (default 0)
`verdict`	No	Only sellers with at least one endpoint in this verdict (sorted by how many they have in it)
`includeBulk`	No	Include sellers listing thousands of near-identical endpoints (default true)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`sellers`	No
`forTeams`	No	Short note about team plans (per-agent keys, spend limits, audit trail)
`matching`	No	Sellers matching the filters
`totalSellers`	No
`totalEndpoints`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety bar is partly met; the description adds two things annotations cannot: it is 'free' and the data is 'the same as lumierepaycheck.org/sellers, refreshed every few minutes,' which tells the agent about staleness and cost. It does not describe pagination semantics or what happens when offset exceeds the total, but limit/offset are documented in the schema.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the payload an agent gets back, then usage, then sibling routing and operational facts. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the annotations or the schema.

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 read-only, six-optional-parameter list endpoint with an output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what is returned, when to call it, what to call instead for drill-down, and freshness/cost. Return-value formatting is correctly left to the output schema.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it names the verdict values as a 'verdict mix' per seller and frames 'search a provider by domain' as a first-class capability, clarifying that query is a domain-substring search rather than a general text search. It says nothing extra about includeBulk or sorting trade-offs, keeping it just above baseline.

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 ('List the sellers behind the monitored x402 endpoints') plus the exact shape of each result: endpoint count, verdict mix with all six verdict values enumerated, passing and paid-tested counts, and best grade. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from seller_endpoints and top_endpoints 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 three concrete use cases (find trustworthy providers, search by domain, find who to avoid) and then routes explicitly: 'Open one seller's endpoints with seller_endpoints; for a single endpoint use check_endpoint.' When-to-use and the alternatives are both named, with no inference required.

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.