SqueezeOS — Institutional AI Market Intelligence

X402 Contract

x402_contract

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the canonical SqueezeOS x402 v2 discovery contract. Use this when an agent needs the payment protocol's rules, for example challenge and response header names, before attempting any paid call. Returns the contract document; exact spend terms remain authoritative only in the target resource's fresh PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge. Read-only and idempotent; no side effects. On error, returns a structured error. For example, read it once per session to learn the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header name.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	Whether the upstream HTTP status is 2xx; not settlement proof.
`body`	No	Unmodified upstream JSON, or bounded response text. Consult that capability's live schema.
`error`	No
`charged`	No	Present on local/transport failures; these do not establish an upstream charge.
`message`	No
`auto_spent`	No
`status_code`	No	Observed upstream HTTP status, or null when no response was obtained.
`substituted`	No
`content_type`	No
`payment_required`	No	Observed PAYMENT-REQUIRED header; a challenge does not prove payment.
`payment_response`	No	Observed PAYMENT-RESPONSE header. Assess it together with accepted delivery.
`caller_supplied_authorization`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "ok",
+        "status_code"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Canonical REST response envelope, or a local/transport rejection. Upstream data remains in body and is defined by the live capability schema.",
+  "properties": {
+    "auto_spent": {
+      "const": false
+    },
+    "body": {
+      "description": "Unmodified upstream JSON, or bounded response text. Consult that capability's live schema."
+    },
+    "caller_supplied_authorization": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "charged": {
+      "const": false,
+      "description": "Present on local/transport failures; these do not establish an upstream charge."
+    },
+    "content_type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether the upstream HTTP status is 2xx; not settlement proof.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payment_required": {
+      "description": "Observed PAYMENT-REQUIRED header; a challenge does not prove payment.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "payment_response": {
+      "description": "Observed PAYMENT-RESPONSE header. Assess it together with accepted delivery.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status_code": {
+      "description": "Observed upstream HTTP status, or null when no response was obtained.",
+      "maximum": 599,
+      "minimum": 100,
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "substituted": {
+      "const": false
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real context beyond them: that the doc is canonical and static, that spend terms are authoritative only in the target resource's fresh PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge, and that errors return a structured error. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the safety profile plus staleness caveat are well handled.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then usage, then behavioral caveats, so an agent can stop reading early. It loses a point for mild redundancy: the header-name example appears twice ('challenge and response header names' vs. 'the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header name').

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it: purpose, timing, idempotency, error behavior, and the important caveat that the returned contract is not the authoritative spend terms. Nothing material is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. It correctly implies a parameter-free fetch ('read it once per session') without contradicting the empty schema.

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 ('Read the canonical SqueezeOS x402 v2 discovery contract') and scopes it as a static protocol-rules document, which cleanly separates it from the diagnostics-flavored x402_readiness and x402_evidence siblings. An agent can tell what it gets back without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance: use it when the agent needs payment protocol rules 'before attempting any paid call,' and 'once per session to learn the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header name.' It lacks any explicit comparison to the several nearby x402_* siblings, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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

All SqueezeOS — Institutional AI Market Intelligence 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.