Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

x402 Micropayments MCP

by io.github.kwizzlesurp10-ctrl
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Activate Pro tier

commerce.activate_pro

Verify a Pro-tier x402 payment and unlock Pro quota limits for the agent. MCP-native: call without payment to receive x402 requirements in the tool result, then retry with _meta['x402/payment'] (@x402/mcp client). Legacy: pass PAYMENT-SIGNATURE + PAYMENT-REQUIRED after commerce.pro_requirements.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idNoAgent identity to grant Pro quota. Must match the requirements call.
payment_requiredNoLegacy PAYMENT-REQUIRED from commerce.pro_requirements. Ignored when using MCP _meta payment.
payment_signatureNoLegacy HTTP-style PAYMENT-SIGNATURE. Omit for MCP x402/payment transport.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_required / default
      Added value: +null
    • changedInput schema / properties / payment_required / description
      Previous value: -"PAYMENT-REQUIRED JSON returned by commerce.pro_requirements."New value: +"Legacy PAYMENT-REQUIRED from commerce.pro_requirements. Ignored when using MCP _meta payment."
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_signature / default
      Added value: +null
    • changedInput schema / properties / payment_signature / description
      Previous value: -"PAYMENT-SIGNATURE from the Pro-tier USDC payment."New value: +"Legacy HTTP-style PAYMENT-SIGNATURE. Omit for MCP x402/payment transport."
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "payment_signature",
-  "payment_required"
-]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the tool is payment-gated, has a requirement-discovery first call, and produces the side effect of unlocking quota. It does not say what happens on a repeat activation or whether an existing Pro grant is overwritten or charged again.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the outcome, then the preferred MCP-native protocol, then the legacy fallback. Jargon-dense (@x402/mcp, _meta) but every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return payloads need not be described, and the description covers the prerequisite (commerce.pro_requirements) and both transport modes. The main remaining gap is post-activation behavior on repeat calls for a non-idempotent mutation-ish operation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 exceeds it by documenting the transport-level _meta['x402/payment'] mechanism, which is not represented as a schema parameter at all, and by framing payment_required/payment_signature as the legacy alternative path. It still does not explain the format/derivation of those legacy header values.

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 ('Verify a Pro-tier x402 payment and unlock Pro quota limits for the agent') and clearly separates itself from siblings like commerce.pro_requirements and commerce.purchase_credits. An agent knows exactly what outcome this tool delivers without opening the schema.

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 explicit, actionable flow guidance: call with no payment first to receive x402 requirements, then retry with _meta['x402/payment'], or use the legacy PAYMENT-SIGNATURE + PAYMENT-REQUIRED path after commerce.pro_requirements. It does not address repeats/idempotency or when to prefer this over commerce.purchase_credits, so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

All x402 Micropayments MCP toolsInspect
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