Skip to main content
Glama

x402-data-gateway

by io.github.epistemedeus

Audit Agent Service Discoverability

agent_discoverability_audit

Measure one service's brand-blind rank, source-family coverage, expected-route presence, canonical-vs-alias listing identity, duplicate records, competitors, and exact-price drift across ten public machine-service discovery views. Supply runtimeUrl with an exact GET route to derive the comparison price from one coherent live unsigned x402 or MPP offer; otherwise expectedPriceUsd remains caller-supplied. Set surfaceAudit to check the target's public Agent Card, ERC-8004 registration document, and action catalog. Set materializationAudit with an exact GET or POST route to distinguish Coinbase seller ineligibility from provider acceptance without exact-resource Bazaar materialization. Catalog queries use no credentials or payments. Results are point-in-time provider and catalog evidence, not demand, seller trust, settlement, or future-rank proof.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payToNoOptional EVM payTo for alias matching
routeNoOptional expected exact path
intentYesBrand-blind capability description
methodNoExact route method for the optional Coinbase materialization audit. Defaults to GET; runtimeUrl is GET-only.
originYesPublic HTTPS service origin
runtimeUrlNoOptional exact same-origin HTTPS GET URL whose unpaid x402 or MPP offer supplies the runtime price reference. Requires route and an exactly matching pathname.
surfaceAuditNoWhen true, inspect the target's public Agent Card, ERC-8004 registration document, and action catalog for the expected route through bounded same-origin fetches.
expectedPriceUsdNoOptional exact route price expected by the caller. A coherent runtimeUrl offer takes precedence and caller drift is reported.
materializationAuditNoWhen true with route and method, distinguish Coinbase seller ineligibility from provider acceptance without exact-resource Bazaar materialization.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and largely meets it: it discloses that catalog queries use no credentials or payments, that results are point-in-time evidence, and that materializationAudit avoids exact-resource materialization. The schema description also adds bounded same-origin fetches. It does not fully state side effects or rate limits, but 'bounded' and 'no credentials/payments' cover the main risk areas.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameter-mode guidance and caveats. Every sentence contributes meaning, but the density of jargon (brand-blind rank, canonical-vs-alias, ERC-8004, Bazaar materialization) makes it heavy; appropriate for the domain but not light.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by explaining orchestration of runtimeUrl, expectedPriceUsd, surfaceAudit, materializationAudit, and the limits of the evidence produced. It does not describe the return shape or all combinations of parameters, but for a specialized audit tool it gives enough for an agent to select and call it 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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics: runtimeUrl takes precedence over expectedPriceUsd, surfaceAudit and materializationAudit each trigger specific audit scopes, and materializationAudit requires route and method. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions in 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 opening sentence names a specific action ('Measure') and a precise resource: one service's discoverability across ten machine-service discovery views, with enumerated metrics like brand-blind rank, expected-route presence, and exact-price drift. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like agent_surface_budget_audit or seller_integrity_audit by focusing on listing and discovery evidence.

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 explicit conditions for optional behaviors: supply runtimeUrl to derive price from a live x402/MPP offer, set surfaceAudit for Agent Card/ERC-8004 checks, and set materializationAudit to distinguish Coinbase ineligibility. It also provides exclusions by stating results are not demand, seller trust, settlement, or future-rank proof, though it does not name alternative sibling tools.

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

All x402-data-gateway 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools cluster around the same domain: there are multiple audit tools, multiple preflight tools, multiple receipt/settlement tools, and two wallet-policy-conformance tools. The descriptions are carefully distinguished with 'use X instead' notes, but an agent would still need to read closely to separate `agent_discoverability_audit` from `agent_surface_budget_audit` and `seller_integrity_audit` from `payment_offer_preflight`.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a readable, snake_case pattern with a domain prefix or action stem, such as `morpho_position`, `transaction_receipt`, `wallet_enrich`, and `contract_qualified_search`. The convention is not fully uniform—`read`, `extract`, `scan`, and `schemaforge` are standalone verbs or compounds, and `agent_surface_budget_audit` is a much longer construction—but the style is consistent enough to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

22 tools is at the heavy end of a data-gateway scope, especially since they spread across x402 discovery, Morpho lending, web domain audits, wallet policy, and blockchain receipts. Each tool explains its existence, but the set feels broader than one central data-gateway concern.

Completeness4/5

The tools form a coherent read-only x402/agent-commerce lifecycle: catalog search, discoverability, surface/seller integrity, payment offer preflight, settlement proof, and transaction receipt verification. There are some peripheral tools that do not directly serve x402, and no payment or execution action exists, but the read-only audit gate is intentionally complete and lacks dead ends.

Resources