Skip to main content
Glama

SqueezeOS — Institutional AI Market Intelligence

X402 Readiness

x402_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the live x402 payment-rail readiness surface. Call this when an agent is about to attempt a paid call and wants to confirm the rail is up before building a payment signature. Returns the current readiness status of the canonical SqueezeOS payment rail. Read-only and idempotent; no side effects. On error, returns a structured error. For example, check readiness before a batch of paid URL-to-Markdown calls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNoWhether the upstream HTTP status is 2xx; not settlement proof.
bodyNoUnmodified upstream JSON, or bounded response text. Consult that capability's live schema.
errorNo
chargedNoPresent on local/transport failures; these do not establish an upstream charge.
messageNo
auto_spentNo
status_codeNoObserved upstream HTTP status, or null when no response was obtained.
substitutedNo
content_typeNo
payment_requiredNoObserved PAYMENT-REQUIRED header; a challenge does not prove payment.
payment_responseNoObserved PAYMENT-RESPONSE header. Assess it together with accepted delivery.
caller_supplied_authorizationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'read-only and idempotent; no side effects' largely restates structured data. It does add that it is a live check and that errors return a structured error, which is genuinely additive, but the behavioral picture beyond annotations is thin.

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-loads the core action, then the trigger, then supporting detail, closing with a concrete example. Mostly waste-free, though the read-only/idempotent/no-side-effects clause is redundant with annotations and could be trimmed.

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 an output schema present and no input parameters, the description need not explain return values, and it covers purpose, timing, and error behavior. It is nearly complete; only the routing against the other x402 siblings is left implicit.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit. No syntax, defaults, or formats are needed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: check the live x402 payment-rail readiness surface, returning its readiness status. This is distinguishable from siblings like x402_contract and x402_evidence, though the description never names them to sharpen the boundary. Clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 a concrete trigger: 'Call this when an agent is about to attempt a paid call and wants to confirm the rail is up before building a payment signature,' reinforced by the batch example. Clear context, but no explicit exclusions or named alternative when the rail is down or when another x402 tool is the better fit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources