x402_working_servicesList x402 agent-payment services that are currently ALIVE and return a valid x402 challenge, ranked by PulseFeed Trust Score, plus ecosystem risk map. Use this to pick a service with a track record instead of paying an endpoint you have not checked. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Descriptions adds context beyond annotations: it returns alive services ranked by trust score and risk map, and states it's free. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences that front-load the key purpose and usage guidance. Every word adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but description mentions list of services and risk map. Adequate for a simple read-only tool with no parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters, schema coverage 100%. Baseline of 4 is appropriate as description adds no parameter info but is not needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The title and description clearly state the tool lists live x402 services ranked by PulseFeed Trust Score and includes an ecosystem risk map. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_x402_endpoint and x402_leaderboard.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states 'Use this to pick a service with a track record instead of paying an endpoint you have not checked,' providing clear guidance on when to use the tool and implying an alternative approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.