Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

agent_clearance_packet

Signed clearance packet an AI agent buys BEFORE a large capital move: one call fuses OFAC/sanctions + mixer screening, multi-hop fund-flow forensics (layering, concentration, hubs) and counterparty settlement trust into a CLEAR/REVIEW/BLOCK verdict with the evaluated amount, a policy-bounded approved amount, a short expiry and an Ed25519 signature verifiable offline. Can I send this capital to THIS wallet? Pre-payment AML/KYT clearance and counterparty due-diligence for agents. Price: $1.50 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). Signed clearance packet before an agent moves significant capital to a wallet: fuses OFAC/sanctions + mixer screening, multi-hop fund-flow forensics (circular/layering, concentration, hubs) and on-chain counterparty settlement trust into one CLEAR/REVIEW/BLOCK verdict with the evaluated amount, a policy-bounded approved amount, a short expiry and an Ed25519 signature verifiable offline. Pre-payment AML/KYT clearance and counterparty due-diligence for autonomous agents. Input: to (counterparty wallet) + amount_usd (+ optional depth).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesCounterparty EVM wallet the capital will move to (0x + 40 hex)
depthNoForensics graph hops: 1, 2 or 3 (default 2)
amount_usdYesCapital about to move, in USD, e.g. 800 — scopes the verdict and approved amount

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses the paid nature ($1.50, x402), return format (verdict, amounts, expiry, Ed25519 signature), and offline verifiability. It does not discuss failure modes or rate limits, but the disclosed traits are detailed.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is repetitive and verbose. The first sentence is very long, and information is duplicated (e.g., the description of the clearance packet appears twice). It could be condensed by at least half without losing meaning.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value (verdict, amounts, expiry, signature) and input parameters. It also includes cost, payment method, and verification capability. This is fully adequate for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds clarity by explaining 'depth' as forensics graph hops with a default value, and lists the parameters in context. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool provides a signed clearance packet for pre-payment AML/KYT checks, combining multiple screenings into a verdict. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'agent_clearance' tool, so purpose clarity is strong but not perfect.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('Can I send this capital to THIS wallet?', pre-payment clearance) and includes cost/payment details. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like 'agent_clearance' or 'agent_due_diligence'.

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

All x402-endpoints 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, there are clusters of similar tools (e.g., multiple token safety and pre-trade verdict tools for different chains) that could cause confusion, though descriptions help differentiate.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase snake_case with descriptive prefixes (e.g., agent_, crypto_, x402_). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous names.

Tool Count2/5

52 tools is excessive for a single server, covering a wide range of unrelated domains (crypto, legal, climate, transport, etc.). This overwhelms an agent and suggests a lack of focus.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain; it offers one-off tools across many areas but misses fundamental operations for any specific domain (e.g., no company registry for US, no order placement for crypto). Significant gaps exist.

Resources