Anyway Possible Paid Agent Utilities

x402 Merchant Audit ($0.25 USDC)

merchant_audit

Read-only

Audit listings, semantic rank, competitor prices, payment reliability, buyer reach, and observed Base USDC activity. Repeated runs with the same wallet and queries return privacy-safe score history and change alerts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`payTo`	Yes	Merchant payment-recipient wallet address on Base.
`queries`	Yes	One to five buyer search phrases used for listing rank and competitor analysis.
`excludePayers`	No	Optional wallet addresses to exclude from buyer and revenue signals, such as self-test wallets.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`grade`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`actions`	Yes
`auditId`	Yes
`network`	Yes
`onchain`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`listings`	Yes
`merchant`	Yes
`rankings`	Yes
`monitoring`	Yes
`observedAt`	Yes
`limitations`	Yes
`scoreBreakdown`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedSep 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / excludePayers / description

Added value: +"Optional wallet addresses to exclude from buyer and revenue signals, such as self-test wallets."

removedInput schema / properties / excludePayers / items / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/properties/payTo"
```
addedInput schema / properties / excludePayers / items / pattern
```
Added value: +"^0x[a-fA-F0-9]{40}$"
```
addedInput schema / properties / excludePayers / items / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```

addedInput schema / properties / payTo / description

Added value: +"Merchant payment-recipient wallet address on Base."

addedInput schema / properties / queries / description

Added value: +"One to five buyer search phrases used for listing rank and competitor analysis."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "actions": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "auditId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "enum": [
+        "A",
+        "B",
+        "C",
+        "D",
+        "F"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "limitations": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "listings": {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/properties/scoreBreakdown"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "merchant": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "monitoring": {
+      "$ref": "#/properties/scoreBreakdown"
+    },
+    "network": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "observedAt": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "onchain": {
+      "$ref": "#/properties/scoreBreakdown"
+    },
+    "rankings": {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/properties/scoreBreakdown"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "maximum": 100,
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "scoreBreakdown": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "$ref": "#/properties/scoreBreakdown"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "auditId",
+    "merchant",
+    "network",
+    "observedAt",
+    "score",
+    "grade",
+    "scoreBreakdown",
+    "summary",
+    "listings",
+    "rankings",
+    "onchain",
+    "actions",
+    "monitoring",
+    "limitations"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: repeated runs produce score history and change alerts, and results are 'privacy-safe'. It also implies the tool accumulates historical data without contradicting the readOnly annotation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two clear sentences, front-loading the core audit capabilities and then adding the historical behavior. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the input schema provides complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what is audited and the repeatability behavior. The only notable gap is the lack of differentiation from merchant_snapshot, but that is more of a usage guideline concern, and the presence of the output schema completes the picture for calling correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters (payTo, queries, excludePayers) are already described in the schema. The description only hints at the role of wallet and queries ('same wallet and queries') but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb 'Audit' and enumerates the resources being audited: listings, semantic rank, competitor prices, payment reliability, buyer reach, and Base USDC activity. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'merchant_snapshot', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for repeated audits by mentioning 'Repeated runs... return privacy-safe score history and change alerts', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like merchant_snapshot, nor does it list exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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

All Anyway Possible Paid Agent Utilities 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.