laen

laen_quote

FREE. Get the price and EXACT x402 payment requirements for resolving one blocker. Use the returned requirements.accepts[0] to construct/sign your payment with your own x402 client (e.g. x402-fetch createPaymentHeader). Never share keys.

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": {
      "blocker_id": "<blocker_id>"
    },
    "name": "laen_quote"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`product`	No	receipt $0.25 (evidence) \| certificate $0.50 (evidence + fresh anchored receipt w/ verify_url)
`blocker_id`	Yes	the blocker/obligation id (obl_<16hex>)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 25, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is free, returns exact payment requirements, and warns against sharing keys. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, what happens on failure, or any side effects. It adds some behavioral context but not comprehensive 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?

The description is four short sentences, each adding value: 'FREE' is a cost indicator, 'Get the price...' states the purpose, 'Use the returned...' explains how to use the result, and 'Never share keys' is a security pointer. It is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly mentions the key part of the return value (requirements.accepts[0]) and gives a concrete usage example. It could mention authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the existing info, it feels sufficiently complete for the intended workflow.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both 'product' (enum with descriptions) and 'blocker_id' described. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning or usage guidance beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's action: 'Get the price and EXACT x402 payment requirements for resolving one blocker.' This specifies the verb (get), resource (price/payment requirements), and context (for resolving a blocker), distinguishing it from sibling tools like laen_find_blockers and laen_resolve.

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?

The description provides practical usage guidance: it mentions the tool is 'FREE,' instructs to use the returned requirements.accepts[0] to construct/sign payment with an x402 client, and includes a security caveat ('Never share keys'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools or exclude any alternative use cases, which would push it to a 5.

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

All laen 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.

Resources

Need Help?