Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

legible-check

by io.github.EzeAlfaro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

x402_seller

History of an x402 seller before your agent pays it: how long the resource has been tracked, whether its recipient wallet or price changed, and how often it answers. A change of recipient is the signal to stop and look. Untracked resources are not charged. Price: 0.010 USDC per call over x402 on Base or Solana.

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": "x402_seller"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesExample: https://sol.blockrun.ai/api/v1/chat/completions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Previous value: -"Example: https://seller.example/paid-route"New value: +"Example: https://sol.blockrun.ai/api/v1/chat/completions"
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 so well on the points that matter: it discloses the cost (0.010 USDC per call), the payment rails (Base or Solana), and a non-obvious billing rule (untracked resources are not charged). It does not state authorisation requirements, rate limits, or what happens if payment fails, so it stops short of complete behavior disclosure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the safety heuristic and then the price. Every clause earns its place, including the fragment 'Price: 0.010 USDC per call over x402 on Base or Solana,' which is the right shape for a billing fact.

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 and no annotations, the description has to explain return content and it does, naming the three data points the agent gets back. The gaps are secondary for a single-parameter lookup: what 'tracked' means quantitatively and how an untracked result is signalled are left 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?

There is a single required parameter at 100% schema coverage, with an example URL already provided in the schema. The description frames the input conceptually as 'the resource you are about to pay' but adds no format, validity, or failure-mode detail beyond what the schema already supplies, so the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific resource (an x402 seller's history) and enumerates the returned facts: tracking duration, recipient wallet and price changes, and answer frequency. That makes the tool's output distinguishable from siblings like evm_recipient_check or risk_token, though the closely related x402_feed is never mentioned, so the boundary with that sibling stays implicit.

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?

It gives an explicit usage context ('before your agent pays it') and even a decision rule: a change of recipient 'is the signal to stop and look.' What is missing is any named alternative for the cases where this tool is not appropriate, so the agent must infer the fallback on its own.

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

All legible-check 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