Singularity Layer MCP

request_endpoint_credit_purchase_payment

Return the x402 payment challenge for purchasing a public credit pack from an endpoint that exposes /e/:slug?action=purchase.

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
`clientReferenceId`	No	Optional client reference ID forwarded to the purchase flow

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description says the tool 'returns' a challenge, indicating a non-mutating action, but it does not disclose whether any purchase actually occurs or what happens to the returned challenge. With no annotations, more details about side effects or prerequisites would be helpful, but the core behavior is unambiguous.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and there is no wasted text, though the term 'x402' might require domain knowledge.

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 the complexity of the payment flow and the absence of an output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain how the returned challenge is used, what the response format looks like, or how this tool relates to purchase_endpoint_credits_with_payment, leaving the agent to infer the next steps.

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?

All four parameters are already fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema. The mention of 'slug' in the URL pattern does not add new information.

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 an x402 payment challenge for purchasing a public credit pack. It distinguishes from sibling tools such as request_endpoint_creation_payment and request_endpoint_topup_payment by specifying the action (purchase) and the endpoint pattern (/e/:slug?action=purchase).

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 gives clear context: the endpoint must expose /e/:slug?action=purchase. It implies this is the correct tool when initiating a credit pack purchase, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as purchase_endpoint_credits_with_payment.

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?