Singularity Layer MCP

request_endpoint_creation_payment

Return the x402 payment challenge needed to create a new agent endpoint. Requires a dashboard PAT with mcp:endpoints:write or mcp:*.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	No	Pricing mode
`name`	Yes	Human-readable endpoint name
`slug`	Yes	Unique slug for the new endpoint
`chain`	Yes	Primary payout network, usually base, solana, or both
`price`	No	Price per request or base package price
`category`	No	Marketplace category
`currency`	No	Payout currency, default USDC
`imageUrl`	No	Endpoint image URL
`bannerUrl`	No	Endpoint banner URL
`originUrl`	Yes	Origin URL of the endpoint backend
`webhookUrl`	No	Optional HTTPS webhook URL
`accessToken`	Yes	Your dashboard MCP personal access token (sgl_pat_*)
`description`	No	Endpoint description
`walletAddress`	Yes	Primary payout wallet address
`purchaseAmount`	No	USDC amount to pay on creation, minimum 5
`listOnMarketplace`	No	Whether to list the endpoint publicly
`walletAddressSecondary`	No	Secondary wallet when chain is both

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the required PAT permission scope and that it returns a challenge, but it does not clarify whether the call has side effects, whether it creates anything, or details like challenge expiration. This is adequate but minimal.

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 consists of two concise sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema, the description should explain what the payment challenge looks like or how it fits into the flow. It only says 'x402 payment challenge' without structure or next steps, and it does not mention the relationship with create_endpoint_with_payment. For a tool with 17 parameters and no output schema, this is incomplete.

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 describes all 17 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond mentioning the PAT scope, which is already documented in the schema's accessToken field. Thus it adds minimal value over the schema, matching the baseline.

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 returns the x402 payment challenge for creating a new agent endpoint, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling payment tools like request_endpoint_topup_payment and request_endpoint_credit_purchase_payment by explicitly scoping to endpoint creation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The usage context is implied by the phrase 'needed to create a new agent endpoint', and the required PAT scope provides a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., topup or credit purchase payment challenges), nor any mention of the overall payment workflow.

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?