Skip to main content
Glama

onyx-mcp

by io.github.dimitrilaouanis-tech

onyx_payment_gate

Pre-payment clearance for agents. Call this BEFORE settling with a merchant over x402/AP2: give the merchant domain (optionally the amount and the price you expect to pay). Onyx assembles a single hard clearance — PROCEED / REVIEW / HOLD — from its Ed25519-signed observation log: Onyx-Verified status, live TLS/reachability/off-domain-redirect facts, domain age, and observed-vs-expected price. Facts with methods disclosed, signed and verifiable; Onyx never asserts the merchant is honest — it ensures you read real signed ground-truth before you move money. The check agents run at the payment chokepoint. (price: $0.05 USDC, tier: metered)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
brandNoOptional brand the merchant CLAIMS to be (e.g. 'Russell & Bromley'). If a well-known brand is claimed on a freshly-registered domain, the clearance is HELD — the cloned-storefront pattern.
domainYesMerchant domain or URL you are about to pay, e.g. shop.example.com
amount_usdNoOptional amount you are about to pay (for the record; large amounts lower the auto-PROCEED bar).
product_urlNoOptional specific product URL to read the observed price from.
expected_priceNoOptional price you were quoted/expect. If the page shows a price, a large deviation downgrades the clearance.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the decision types, the data sources (Ed25519-signed observation log, TLS/reachability, domain age, price comparison), and explicitly notes the tool does not assert merchant honesty, only ground truth.

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?

The description is slightly verbose but well-structured: it front-loads the purpose, then explains the mechanism and limitation. Every sentence contributes either usage guidance or behavioral context, so it earns its length.

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 the complexity of a payment clearance tool, the description covers the decision output, the input conditions, the evidence used, and the pricing. It lacks an explicit response schema but the PROCEED/REVIEW/HOLD result is clearly stated, making it fairly 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% for all five parameters, so baseline 3. The description adds some context by referencing 'amount and the price you expect to pay' and the observed-vs-expected price logic, but it doesn't add significant syntax beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Pre-payment clearance for agents' and specifies the exact action: call before settling over x402/AP2 to receive a PROCEED/REVIEW/HOLD decision. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by framing it as the payment chokepoint check.

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 explicitly states when to use: 'Call this BEFORE settling with a merchant over x402/AP2' and describes the optional inputs. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough.

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

All onyx-mcp 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a specific aspect of security or verification, from agent liveness to token risk to transaction preflight, with clear descriptions that prevent confusion. Even similar-sounding tools like tx_guard and tx_preflight cover distinct scenarios.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent 'onyx_<descriptive_name>' pattern using snake_case, making it easy to infer purpose from the name. No mixing of styles or conventions.

Tool Count4/5

23 tools is on the higher end but justified by the broad scope of security services offered, covering many distinct verification needs without being excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides a comprehensive surface for agent security, including pre-payment checks, smart contract audits, token risk, merchant verification, and identity attestation. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources