x402 Agent Tollbooth

contract_audit

Read-only

Live Smart Contract AI Auditor. Analyzes Base contracts for vulnerabilities. Cost: 0.02 USDC via x402 protocol. Cost: 0.02 USDC on Base & Solana (100% gasless).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`isPatch`	No	Whether to generate a patch
`limited_review`	No	Explicitly purchase only a limited source-pattern review at the quoted endpoint price; this mode does not provide an AI audit or patch
`contractAddress`	No	The Base network smart contract address to audit.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limits`	No
`status`	Yes
`service`	Yes
`endpoint`	Yes
`findings`	No
`safety_proven`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limited_review

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Explicitly purchase only a limited source-pattern review at the quoted endpoint price; this mode does not provide an AI audit or patch",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed8 schema fields changedOct 27, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / audit
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / findings
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "array"
+}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / latency_ms
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "integer"
-}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / limits
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "array"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / safety_proven
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / score
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "integer"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / verified_by
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / vulnerabilities
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "array"
-}
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "audit": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "endpoint": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "latency_ms": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "service": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verified_by": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "vulnerabilities": {
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "service",
+    "endpoint"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: a 0.02 USDC cost via the x402 protocol, gasless payment, and Base/Solana support. However, the cost is stated twice in conflicting phrasing ('via x402 protocol' vs 'on Base & Solana (100% gasless)'), and there is no disclosure of latency, what happens if payment fails, or whether the x402 charge occurs before or after analysis.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the duplicated and slightly contradictory cost sentences waste space and could confuse an agent about payment mechanics. The core content could be two sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema and annotations cover return values and safety profile, so the description needn't explain those. But with zero required parameters yet a mandatory-sounding contractAddress audit, the definition never clarifies that an address must actually be supplied, nor what limited_review excludes in practice.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented with defaults and intent. The description adds nothing about contractAddress, isPatch, or the limited_review trade-off beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource: audits Base smart contracts for vulnerabilities. Siblings (ai_intel, arbitrage_scan, smart_router) are clearly different domains, so no explicit disambiguation is required, though none is offered.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to invoke this vs. alternatives (e.g., when to prefer the limited_review mode or when an audit is overkill). The only conditional context is an implicit reference to a 'limited source-pattern review' parameter, with no usage conditions stated.

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

All x402 Agent Tollbooth 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.