paycrow

x402_protected_call

Make an HTTP API call with manual escrow protection. Full control over verification and timelock parameters.

For most payments, use safe_pay instead — it auto-configures protection based on seller trust.

Use x402_protected_call when you need:

Custom JSON Schema verification (not just "valid JSON + 2xx")
Hash-lock verification (exact response match)
Specific timelock durations
To override safe_pay's trust-based amount limits

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The API endpoint URL to call
`body`	No	Request body (for POST/PUT)
`method`	No	HTTP method	GET
`headers`	No	HTTP headers to include
`amount_usdc`	Yes	Amount to pay in USDC
`seller_address`	Yes	Ethereum address of the API provider (seller) who will receive payment
`timelock_minutes`	No	Minutes until escrow expires
`verification_data`	Yes	Verification data: JSON Schema string (for schema strategy) or expected hash (for hash-lock)
`verification_strategy`	No	How to verify the response: 'schema' (JSON Schema) or 'hash-lock' (exact hash match)	schema

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedMar 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / seller_address / description

Previous value: -"Ethereum address of the API provider (seller)"New value: +"Ethereum address of the API provider (seller) who will receive payment"

AddedMar 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses manual escrow protection, full control over verification and timelock, and that it overrides safe_pay's trust-based limits. While it doesn't detail side effects like fund movement or failure outcomes, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though not exhaustive for a financial 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?

The description is concise (~70 words) and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear comparison to safe_pay, and a bulleted list of use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information or overly verbose explanations.

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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers selection criteria comprehensively and gives enough context about verification and timelock to guide invocation. It doesn't specify return values or error handling, but the 100% schema parameter coverage compensates. The description is adequate for an agent to choose and correctly invoke the tool.

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 adds value by explaining the verification strategies ('Custom JSON Schema verification (not just "valid JSON + 2xx")' and 'Hash-lock verification (exact response match)'), which deepens understanding of verification_data and verification_strategy. It also frames timelock_minutes and amount_usdc in the context of overriding safe_pay constraints.

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 function: 'Make an HTTP API call with manual escrow protection.' It specifies the resource (HTTP API call with escrow) and distinguishes it from safe_pay by noting full control over verification and timelock parameters. The bullets further clarify specific use cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says 'For most payments, use safe_pay instead' and then lists concrete scenarios for using x402_protected_call (custom JSON Schema verification, hash-lock, specific timelock durations, overriding amount limits). This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with a named alternative.

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

All paycrow 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between trust_gate, trust_onchain_quick, and trust_score_query, which all relate to checking agent trustworthiness. While each has a slightly different focus (quick check vs. full breakdown vs. decision recommendation), an agent might struggle to choose the right one in some scenarios. The escrow and payment tools are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., escrow_create, escrow_release, rate_service), but there are deviations like safe_pay (adjective_verb) and x402_protected_call (alphanumeric prefix). These outliers break the pattern slightly, though the majority of tools follow a clear convention.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose of handling escrow, payments, and trust management. Each tool appears to serve a specific function in the workflow, from creating escrows to checking trust scores, without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the escrow and payment domain, including creation, dispute, release, status checks, rating, and trust assessment. It supports both automated (safe_pay) and manual (x402_protected_call) workflows, with no obvious gaps in the lifecycle or functionality needed for secure transactions.

Resources

Need Help?