Skip to main content
Glama

x402-endpoints

by io.github.digitalweb33333-creator

agent_passport

Measured-vs-declared reputation dossier for an AI agent, Sybil-corrected. Give an ERC-8004 agent id or wallet: reads the on-chain ERC-8004 Identity + Reputation registries on Base, computes the DECLARED reputation (reviews/reviewers/values) then the MEASURED, Sybil-corrected reputation (owner agent-farming, footprint-less reviewers, review concentration, unbacked-by-settlement), returns the DELTA + a signed offline-verifiable verdict. Real or inflated? Audit-grade due-diligence. Price: $1.00 per call (x402 payment, USDC on Base mainnet). Measured-vs-declared ERC-8004 agent reputation dossier, Sybil-corrected: reads the on-chain ERC-8004 Identity + Reputation registries on Base, computes the declared reputation (review count/reviewers/values) then the measured, Sybil-corrected reputation (owner agent-farming, footprint-less reviewers, review concentration, value uniformity, placeholder tags, unbacked-by-settlement), and returns the delta + a signed offline-verifiable verdict. Is this agent's reputation real or inflated? Audit-grade counterparty due-diligence. Input: agent_id (ERC-8004 tokenId) OR wallet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
walletNoAgent wallet (0x + 40 hex); resolved to its ERC-8004 agentId. Provide this OR agent_id.
agent_idNoERC-8004 agent identity tokenId (IdentityRegistry). Provide this OR wallet.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool reads on-chain data, computes various metrics (owner agent-farming, footprint-less reviewers, etc.), returns a signed offline-verifiable verdict, and requires payment of $1.00 USDC on Base mainnet. No destructive actions mentioned.

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 overly verbose and repetitive, with the second paragraph largely duplicating the first. It could be significantly shortened without loss of information.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return value (delta + signed verdict) and enumerates the reputation components. It also covers pricing and payment method. Some structure of the verdict could be clearer.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it simply restates the options.

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 it reads on-chain ERC-8004 registries, computes declared and measured reputation, and returns a delta with a signed verdict. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing Sybil-correction and audit-grade due-diligence.

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 description gives input requirements (agent_id or wallet) and mentions pricing ($1.00 x402 payment). It implies usage for reputation due-diligence, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives compared to sibling tools like agent_clearance.

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