Singularity Layer MCP

purchase_endpoint_credits_with_payment

Complete a public endpoint credit-pack purchase after you have obtained a valid X-Payment payload for the purchase challenge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	Endpoint slug for the credit-enabled endpoint
`metadata`	No	Optional metadata object forwarded to the purchase flow
`walletAddress`	No	Optional wallet address to receive the purchased credits when the underlying endpoint supports it
`paymentPayload`	Yes	Raw X-Payment payload returned by the paying client, as JSON or base64 string
`clientReferenceId`	No	Optional client reference ID forwarded to the purchase flow

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key prerequisite (having a valid X-Payment payload) and that it completes a purchase. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., charging, debiting), error conditions, or return behavior. It is not misleading but lacks full transparency.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes the necessary precondition. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the purpose and the main prerequisite. It does not explain return values or post-purchase behavior, but the description of a completion step is reasonably complete. Sibling tools help fill context, so a 4 is appropriate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema's own descriptions. The schema already explains paymentPayload, metadata, walletAddress, etc., so the tool description adds no additional semantic value for parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Complete a public endpoint credit-pack purchase' with a specific prerequisite. It verb 'Complete' plus resource 'endpoint credit-pack purchase' is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like request_endpoint_credit_purchase_payment (which initiates) and topup_endpoint_with_payment (which tops up).

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 explicitly says to use 'after you have obtained a valid X-Payment payload for the purchase challenge', which gives clear context on when to use. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use, but the prerequisite is strong enough to imply the correct usage phase.

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

All Singularity Layer MCP 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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a clear verb with a distinct resource noun, so endpoints, agents, datasets, campaigns, products, and vault operations are generally easy to separate. The main risk is the repeated request_*_payment / *_with_payment pairs and the two create_*_with_payment tools, which are only distinguishable by reading descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun snake_case, such as list_my_endpoints, update_campaign, and finalize_agent_registration, and the payment/request pairs are consistently named. The vault_* tools use a namespace prefix rather than verb-first names, and vault_how_to_backup breaks the action-oriented convention, so it is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

48 tools is a very large MCP surface, well beyond the 25-tool threshold where selection becomes a serious burden. Even though the server spans multiple domains, the count feels excessive for a single agent-facing tool set and should likely be split by domain.

Completeness3/5

The core endpoint, agent, marketplace, and payment flows are well covered, including creation, updates, stats, and two-phase x402 purchases. However, there is no create_product or delete_product, campaigns lack delete, and there is no way to list previously purchased datasets, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.

Resources

Need Help?