Kawal

Everything Kawal holds about one agent (paid)

deep_report

Everything Kawal holds about one agent in a single answer: the live handshake, the full probe history, how the endpoint fails when it fails, whether it really charges, and who wrote its feedback. This one costs money. Kawal measured that 75 of 200 BSC registrations declare x402 support and that none of the reachable ones ever asks to be paid; this is the counter-example. Calling it without payment returns the terms rather than the report. Pay the terms with a plain BNB transfer and call again with txHash; the receipt is read on-chain and spent once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`txHash`	No	Hash of the BNB transfer that paid the terms: 0x followed by 64 hex characters. Omit to receive the terms.
`chainId`	No	Chain id. One of 56, 97. Defaults to 56.
`tokenId`	Yes	ERC-8004 token id, decimal digits.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the call costs money, unpaid calls return terms instead of the report, the txHash receipt is consumed exactly once, and payment is verified on-chain. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent must know before invoking.

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?

The description front-loads the report contents and keeps the payment flow clear. The BSC measurement sentence adds helpful context for why the tool costs money, but it is slightly non-essential for invocation and lengthens the description.

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 paid, non-idempotent, one-agent report with no output schema, the description fully covers the invocation lifecycle, payment requirement, one-time txHash semantics, and expected contents. There is no critical missing information for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds valuable context by explaining that omitting txHash returns terms, and that the same txHash is spent once, which is essential for correct use of the optional parameter.

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 clearly identifies what the tool returns: a single comprehensive report about one agent, with enumerated contents like live handshake, probe history, failure mode, charging status, and feedback authorship. It doesn't use an explicit verb like 'get' or name sibling tools, but the 'everything... in a single answer' phrasing and paid marker distinguish it from lighter lookups.

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 gives a clear two-step usage flow: call without txHash to receive terms, pay with a BNB transfer, then call again with txHash, with the receipt read on-chain and spent once. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings, but it makes the required sequence unambiguous.

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

All Kawal tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct angles—live single check, history, paid deep report, comparison, owner sweep—so misselection is unlikely in practice. However, verify_agent, uptime_history, and deep_report all probe one agent and could be confused without reading descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Six of nine tools follow the verb_noun pattern (check_payment, verify_agent, find_agents), and all names are readable snake_case. The exceptions—agents_by_owner, deep_report, and uptime_history—are noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well-scoped for a monitoring and verification service. Each tool covers a distinct user need with no obvious redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The set covers search, live verification, uptime history, reputation source analysis, payment checks, comparison, owner listing, and mandate planning. Minor gaps like pagination on agents_by_owner and find_agents prevent a higher score.

Resources

Need Help?