Skip to main content
Glama

x402 Counterparty Score

by org.x402score
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Server Details

Trust scores for x402 sellers: wash-trading, real buyers, verdict. $0.02/score via x402 on Base.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
Status
Healthy
Uptime
61.8% over 37 days
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
URL

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one provides a free stale sample for testing response parsing, the other provides a paid fresh score. There is zero overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Both tools use a verb_noun pattern (get_sample_score, score_x402_counterparty). The second name is longer and includes a tag, but the convention is consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the surface is very thin. Even for a scoring service, one would expect additional tools like a list or history endpoint, making the count feel insufficient for a production server.

Completeness2/5

The server provides only a sample and a single scoring call. There are no tools for managing scores, viewing history, or handling payment errors, so the domain coverage is severely limited.

Available Tools

2 tools
get_sample_scoreA
Read-only
Inspect

Returns a clearly-marked stale sample counterparty score in the exact response schema of score_x402_counterparty (verdict, wash_trading_ratio, real_buyer_count, repeat_buyer_rate, source, updated_at, confidence). Free, no payment required, no input required. Sample data is fixed and expired by design — use it to validate response parsing, then call score_x402_counterparty ($0.02/call) for fresh decision-grade scores.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
sampleYesAlways true: this response is a sample, not a live score.
sourceYesOrigin of the underlying data, e.g. "base-settlements" or "bazaar-directory".
subjectYesThe x402 endpoint URL or pay-to address this score is about.
verdictYesDecision-grade trust verdict on the counterparty.
deliveryNoResult of the most recent real-money delivery probe (mystery-shopper purchase from the disclosed probe wallet). Absent if this subject has not been probe-purchased.
confidenceYesObjective confidence from rule coverage and data completeness, 0 to 1. Never self-reported by an LLM.
updated_atYesISO 8601 UTC timestamp of when this score was computed.
sample_noticeYesMachine-readable warning that the data is stale sample data.
real_buyer_countYesNumber of distinct real buyers after wash-trading filtering.
repeat_buyer_rateYesShare of real buyers that purchased more than once, 0 to 1.
wash_trading_ratioYesShare of nominal settlement volume attributed to wash trading (self-dealing or funding-loop patterns), 0 to 1.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the sample data is fixed and expired by design, and lists the response schema fields. The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent; no contradictions. However, it could mention any potential rate limits or failure modes.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core value (stale sample, free), no unnecessary words, and efficiently covers purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral context.

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?

With no parameters and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return schema fields, the stale nature, and the comparative sibling. No gaps.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description adds value by stating 'no input required' and emphasizing the tool is free, which is relevant for selection.

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 a stale sample counterparty score, explicitly naming the sibling tool (score_x402_counterparty) for fresh scores, and specifies that it is free and requires no input.

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 tells when to use this tool (to validate response parsing) and when to use the sibling tool (for fresh decision-grade scores), along with cost implications.

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

score_x402_counterpartyA
Read-only
Inspect

Returns trust verdict (trusted/caution/avoid) with wash-trading ratio, real-buyer count, and repeat-buyer rate for an x402 endpoint URL or pay-to address. $0.02/call. Computed from Base on-chain settlement data and the x402 Bazaar catalog; a score is sold only if refreshed within the past 24 hours.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subjectYesThe counterparty to score: an x402 endpoint URL (e.g. "https://api.seller.example/quote") or a pay-to address (e.g. "0x036C…"), exactly as advertised in the x402 Bazaar catalog or the 402 handshake.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
sourceYesOrigin of the underlying data, e.g. "base-settlements" or "bazaar-directory".
subjectYesThe x402 endpoint URL or pay-to address this score is about.
verdictYesDecision-grade trust verdict on the counterparty.
deliveryNoResult of the most recent real-money delivery probe (mystery-shopper purchase from the disclosed probe wallet). Absent if this subject has not been probe-purchased.
confidenceYesObjective confidence from rule coverage and data completeness, 0 to 1. Never self-reported by an LLM.
updated_atYesISO 8601 UTC timestamp of when this score was computed.
real_buyer_countYesNumber of distinct real buyers after wash-trading filtering.
repeat_buyer_rateYesShare of real buyers that purchased more than once, 0 to 1.
wash_trading_ratioYesShare of nominal settlement volume attributed to wash trading (self-dealing or funding-loop patterns), 0 to 1.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: the tool is paid, computed from specific data, and may not return a score if data is stale. This adds value beyond the annotation without contradiction.

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?

The description is concise with three sentences covering purpose, output, pricing, data source, and freshness. It is front-loaded with the action and result. Minor improvement: could be more structured, but it is effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (single parameter, output schema exists, annotations present), the description is complete: it specifies what the tool returns, how it computes, costs, and a critical behavioral constraint (freshness). The sibling tool is noted for context.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed meaning for the 'subject' parameter (what constitutes a valid input). The tool description reiterates the input types but does not add new semantics beyond the schema.

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 that the tool returns a trust verdict with specific metrics (wash-trading ratio, real-buyer count, repeat-buyer rate) for an x402 endpoint URL or pay-to address. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_sample_score' by computing for a specific subject rather than providing a generic sample.

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 provides context for usage by mentioning the cost ($0.02/call), data sources (Base on-chain data, x402 Bazaar catalog), and a freshness condition (score only sold if refreshed within 24 hours). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling, though the purpose is clear enough to infer.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • Changedget_sample_score1 field changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / delivery
        Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Result of the most recent real-money delivery probe (mystery-shopper purchase from the disclosed probe wallet). Absent if this subject has not been probe-purchased.",
+  "properties": {
+    "checked_at": {
+      "description": "ISO 8601 UTC timestamp of the test purchase. Independent of updated_at and may be older.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "outcome": {
+      "description": "delivered = a real paid test purchase received a valid response; failed = payment was made but no valid goods were delivered.",
+      "enum": [
+        "delivered",
+        "failed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "outcome",
+    "checked_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • Changedscore_x402_counterparty1 field changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / delivery
        Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Result of the most recent real-money delivery probe (mystery-shopper purchase from the disclosed probe wallet). Absent if this subject has not been probe-purchased.",
+  "properties": {
+    "checked_at": {
+      "description": "ISO 8601 UTC timestamp of the test purchase. Independent of updated_at and may be older.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "outcome": {
+      "description": "delivered = a real paid test purchase received a valid response; failed = payment was made but no valid goods were delivered.",
+      "enum": [
+        "delivered",
+        "failed"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "outcome",
+    "checked_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. 2 tool updates
    • First observedget_sample_score
    • First observedscore_x402_counterparty

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

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