SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Checks an x402 endpoint before you pay: one unpaid GET

agent_intel_x402_endpoint_health_vetting

Read-only

Checks an x402 (HTTP 402 payment) endpoint before you pay: one unpaid GET, then the HTTP status, whether a 402 challenge with an accepts list is present, the payment networks, asset, price and pay-to address format, CORS header and response time. Does not pay, does not verify the seller's identity or reputation, and gives one sample, not uptime. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_x402_endpoint_health_vetting"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public https:// endpoint address

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`note`	No
`first`	No
`source`	No
`verdict`	No
`networks`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`httpStatus`	No
`responseMs`	No
`acceptsCount`	No
`corsAllowOrigin`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds the pricing model ('$0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged'), which is critical for an agent deciding whether to call. It also discloses the non-payment guarantee and the sampling limitation, going well beyond the annotation coverage.

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 verb and resource, then a compact enumeration of what is inspected, then pricing and disclaimers. It is somewhat dense and the inspection list duplicates what the output schema likely returns, but every clause carries decision-relevant information and none is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With a 1-parameter schema fully described, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the remaining burden is caveats and cost — both of which the description covers explicitly (no payment, no identity/reputation verification, single sample, per-call pricing). Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Public https:// endpoint address'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds only implicit constraints in the target enumeration (payment networks, asset, pay-to address) but nothing new about the url argument itself, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Checks an x402 (HTTP 402 payment) endpoint') with the scope of the check ('one unpaid GET') and the exact inspection targets. It also distinguishes itself from neighbours by disclaiming uptime ('gives one sample, not uptime'), which separates it from agent_intel_api_sla_liveness_benchmark.

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?

The framing 'before you pay' plus 'Does not pay, does not verify the seller's identity or reputation' gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context by ruling out reputation/identity vetting. It stops short of naming the specific sibling tools to use instead for uptime or reputation.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?