Skip to main content
Glama

Loyal Spark

by io.github.aspekt19

bazaar_pay_and_call

Pay and call any x402-paid HTTPS endpoint using the merchant agent's CDP MPC wallet (EIP-3009 exact scheme on Base USDC). Probes the URL for HTTP 402, picks a compatible requirement, signs TransferWithAuthorization via CDP, retries with X-PAYMENT header, and returns the paid response. Requires scope 'mint' and a pre-created CDP wallet. Safety cap: max_usdc (default 0.25, hard limit 10).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull https:// URL of the x402 resource
bodyNoOptional JSON request body for non-GET methods
methodNoHTTP method (default GET)
headersNoExtra request headers (Accept/Content-Type auto-set)
max_usdcNoSpend cap for THIS call in USDC (default 0.25, must be ≤ 10)
allowed_schemesNox402 schemes to accept (default ['exact'])
allowed_networksNoNetworks to accept (default ['base'])

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses the entire payment flow, the fact that it signs a TransferWithAuthorization, retries with an X-PAYMENT header, and imposes a safety cap with default and hard limits. It also reveals required scope and wallet prerequisites, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and authorization needs.

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 a compact three-sentence paragraph that front-loads the primary action, then details the process, prerequisites, and safety. Every sentence adds substantive value with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the essential workflow, prerequisites, and output ('returns the paid response'), which is important given no output schema. It lacks explicit failure-mode details (e.g., what happens if no compatible requirement is found or if the payment fails), but given the tool's complexity and abundant parameter documentation, it is mostly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds some context around max_usdc (safety cap) and the overall flow, but individual parameter meanings are already fully described in the schema. The description does not significantly clarify the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Pay and call any x402-paid HTTPS endpoint' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the multi-step process (probe, pick requirement, sign TransferWithAuthorization, retry with X-PAYMENT header) and distinguishes itself from the sibling probe tool by emphasizing full payment and response retrieval.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'any x402-paid HTTPS endpoint' and specifies prerequisites (scope 'mint', pre-created CDP wallet) plus a safety cap. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools like bazaar_probe_x402 for mere probing.

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

All Loyal Spark toolsInspect
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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as mint_loyalty_tokens vs earn_points (both mint loyalty tokens with fee bundles), create_loyalty_program vs register_loyalty_program (deploy vs register existing token), and activate_loyalty_program vs update_program_status (both manage program status). Some pairs like check_voucher_status and list_gift_certificates also overlap on voucher/certificate tracking. However, descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity for careful agents.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_reward, list_loyalty_programs). Subtle deviations include earn_points vs mint_loyalty_tokens (different verbs for similar mint operations) and use_voucher vs redeem_reward (different verb styles for redemption). Overall, the naming is predictable and understandable.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, this server is bloated for a loyalty platform. The addition of Bazaar discovery/payment tools and report management expands the scope, but many tools overlap or cover minor variations (e.g., two workflow planners: generate_program_defaults and get_program_workflow_status). A leaner set of 20-25 tools would be more appropriate.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the full loyalty program lifecycle: creation, activation, registration, token minting/transfer, rewards, gift certificates, vouchers, offers, customer export, analytics, and reports. Notable gaps include no CRUD for personalized offers (only create), no edit capability for rewards (only status changes), and no direct function to list all vouchers by merchant (only status check by code). These are minor workarounds.

Resources