Blockchain IQ x402 (remote, keyless)

Call a Blockchain IQ x402 endpoint

call_endpoint

Read-onlyIdempotent

Calls one catalogue resource with a plain GET. A free resource returns its data. A paid one returns the x402 payment requirements (HTTP 402: price, network, asset, payTo) and is NOT paid by this server, which holds no wallet. To buy: pay with your own x402 client, then call again with the signed payload in payment. Nothing is charged unless the data is delivered.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "call_endpoint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Resource id from list_endpoints.
`query`	No	Query-string parameters named in the resource's params.
`payment`	No	Optional. The base64 x402 payment payload YOUR client signed for this exact request; forwarded as the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header.
`pathParams`	No	Values for {placeholders} in the resource path, e.g. {"chain":"ethereum"}. Letters, digits, dot, dash, underscore.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotency, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: the server holds no wallet and will never pay, a 402 body carries price/network/asset/payTo, and 'nothing is charged unless the data is delivered' sets the settlement guarantee. This is exactly the context an agent needs for a paid-resource tool.

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?

Four short sentences in a deliberate order: what it does, free case, paid case, how to buy, plus a settlement reassurance. No filler and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only, single-resource fetch with no output schema, the description covers both possible responses (data vs 402 requirements) and the authentication-adjacent payment step, which is the only real complexity here.

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 `id`, `query`, `payment`, and `pathParams` are already documented. The description adds only the two-step sequencing around `payment` ('call again with the signed payload') and says nothing about how `query` or `pathParams` map onto a resource, leaving it at 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Calls one catalogue resource with a plain GET') and immediately splits the outcome space into free (returns data) versus paid (returns x402 requirements), which lets an agent predict the result before calling.

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?

Gives a clear operational flow for the paid case: pay with your own x402 client, then re-call with the signed payload in `payment`. It does not explicitly say to resolve ids via the sibling list_endpoints first (that hint lives in the schema, not the description), so the when-to-use guidance is strong on the payment path but silent on discovery.

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

All Blockchain IQ x402 (remote, keyless) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?