x402-data-gateway

Preflight Agent Work Opportunity

opportunity_preflight

Agent work opportunity -> deterministic attempt, verify-first, or abandon preflight using caller-supplied cost and selection assumptions plus dated platform evidence. Returns break-even probability, expected surplus, hard gates, and source-linked evidence. No claim, bid, payment, or submission.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hours`	Yes	Estimated human and agent work time in hours for one complete attempt.
`slots`	No	Number of independently paid winner or worker slots.
`platform`	No	Optional platform slug used to attach dated platform-health evidence when a matching card exists.
`rewardUsd`	Yes	Maximum gross reward in USD if the opportunity is selected and paid.
`acceptance`	No	How completion is accepted: deterministic proof, machine score, review deadline, discretionary judgment, or unknown.	unknown
`computeUsd`	No	Expected model, API, hosting, and compute spend in USD for one attempt.
`settlement`	No	How the reward is funded and paid: direct, escrow, platform balance, discretionary, unfunded, or unknown.	unknown
`agentAccess`	No	Whether the platform explicitly allows agent participation, is agent-only, mixes agents and humans, is human-only, or remains unknown.	unknown
`competition`	No	Known number of competing submissions or workers; use 0 when unknown.
`hourlyCostUsd`	Yes	Internal opportunity cost per hour in USD.
`reusableValueUsd`	No	Conservative USD value of reusable code, research, distribution, or other assets created by the attempt.
`mandatorySpendUsd`	No	Non-recoverable cash spend in USD required before the opportunity can settle.
`selectionProbabilityPct`	No	Caller-supplied probability, from 0 to 100, of receiving the reward; omit to receive a verify-first decision.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`gates`	Yes
`input`	Yes
`product`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`boundary`	Yes
`decision`	Yes
`economics`	Yes
`platformEvidence`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses non-mutating behavior ('No claim, bid, payment, or submission'), states inputs (caller assumptions, dated platform evidence) and outputs (probability, surplus, gates, evidence), giving a solid behavioral profile.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose arrow, output summary, and side-effect disclaimer. Every sentence adds distinct value and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 13 parameters and no annotations, the description plus 100%-covered schema and output schema provide a complete enough picture. It could add example scenarios or failure modes, but it is not missing critical operational context.

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 has 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description only adds aggregate context ('caller-supplied cost and selection assumptions', 'dated platform evidence') rather than per-parameter meaning, which is acceptable because the schema already documents every parameter.

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?

Description explicitly frames the tool as preflight analysis of an agent work opportunity, listing concrete outputs (break-even probability, expected surplus, hard gates, source-linked evidence) and a clear non-action boundary ('No claim, bid, payment, or submission'), which distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings.

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?

Clear context: use with caller-supplied cost and selection assumptions plus dated platform evidence before deciding among deterministic attempt, verify-first, or abandon. It excludes submission, claims, and payment, though it does not name specific alternative 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 tools Inspect

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.

Preflight Agent Work Opportunity

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources