Paid MCP tools for URL payment-safety scanning and provider recommendations; USDC on Base via x402.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools serve clearly different purposes: one ranks providers by category, the other scans a URL for payment safety. There is little risk of misselection, though the vague name 'recommend' alone could be slightly unclear without its description.
Names mix conventions: 'recommend' is a bare verb while 'safety_check' is a noun_verb compound. Both are readable, but there is no predictable pattern across the set.
Two tools is thin for a server that implies a provider directory plus safety scanning. Each earns its place, but the surface feels minimal rather than well-scoped.
There is no way to enumerate categories, list or inspect providers, or check scan history, so an agent hitting a recommendation or scan will run into dead ends. Only the two core calls exist, with no supporting lifecycle operations.
Ranked provider recommendations by category ($0.005/call)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states a per-call cost, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the ranking is based on, or any permissions or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single compact phrase with the key purpose and cost front-loaded. It contains no filler, though it is sparse enough that it could afford one clarifying sentence without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It omits when to use it versus safety_check, the shape of the recommendations, and the valid category values, leaving an agent with material gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the category parameter. It only says 'by category,' which restates the parameter name and does not define valid values, format, or what a category represents.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: ranked provider recommendations, scoped by category. It is clear what the tool returns in general, but it does not differentiate the tool from its sibling safety_check, which prevents a top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus safety_check, nor any preconditions or exclusions. The only extra context is pricing, which does not help an agent choose between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Payment-safety scan of a URL ($0.002/call)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the cost ($0.002/call) and implies a read-only scan, but does not state whether the operation has side effects, what permissions are required, how results are returned, or any rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded phrase with no redundant wording. It is efficient, though its terseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being a structural flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what a 'payment-safety scan' returns and any operational constraints. It omits return values, result semantics, and authentication or rate-limit details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the single parameter 'target' is undocumented in the schema. The description clarifies that 'target' is a URL, which adds minimal semantic value, but it does not specify URL format, allowed schemes, validation rules, or examples.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb-resource pair: a payment-safety scan of a URL. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling tool 'recommend'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Payment-safety scan of a URL' implies when the tool should be used, but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or references to alternatives. The sibling 'recommend' is not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
recommendsafety_check37 paid x402 MCP tools for OSINT, prediction markets, web intel, and agent security on Base USDC.
Paid KYC, AML, and regulatory risk assessment over MCP via x402 USDC micropayments on Base.
28 agent tools via x402: crypto data, tx checks, web fetch. MCP pays Base USDC; HTTP adds 3 rails.
Paid x402 MCP utilities for Base-USDC balances, blocks, gas, HTTPS headers, and agent profile bios.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
