Skip to main content
Glama

x402-data-gateway

by io.github.epistemedeus

Audit Complete AI Search Readiness

deep_audit

Run one read-only AI-search-readiness audit for a public business domain: company, technology, contact, and DNS/email evidence from enrich, plus the live structured-data gap analysis and paste-ready JSON-LD template from schemaforge. Use enrich for company facts only or schemaforge for structured-data remediation only. The template contains placeholders for real data; the score is diagnostic, no site changes are made, and it does not guarantee AI citations.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cityNoOptional city the business serves; used only to contextualize the generated structured-data template.
domainYesPublic business domain or URL. The hostname is normalized and the audit starts at its HTTPS homepage; any supplied path or query is ignored.
verticalNoOptional structured-data template profile. med-spas is currently specialized; unsupported values fall back to it.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It proactively discloses: read-only operation ('read-only'), no site changes ('no site changes are made'), diagnostic nature of the score ('the score is diagnostic'), placeholders in the template ('The template contains placeholders for real data'), and a limitation ('does not guarantee AI citations'). These go well beyond a minimal description.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every clause adds value: the first sentence defines scope and components, the second gives alternative directives and important caveats. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a composite tool (enrich + schemaforge) with no output schema, yet the description covers what the tool does, what it returns (gap analysis, JSON-LD template, diagnostic score), its limitations, and how it relates to siblings. Given the complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already documents all 3 parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds a little context (e.g., 'public business domain' and the mention of template placeholders) but does not materially enrich the meaning of individual parameters. Per calibration, baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Run one read-only AI-search-readiness audit for a public business domain.' It enumerates concrete components (company, technology, contact, DNS/email evidence, structured-data gap analysis, JSON-LD template) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing users to 'enrich' for company facts only or 'schemaforge' for structured-data remediation only.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use `enrich` for company facts only or `schemaforge` for structured-data remediation only.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It also sets expectations with 'one read-only audit' and 'public business domain,' making the applicable scope unambiguous.

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