A
licenseA
qualityF
maintenanceCounterparty risk scoring for agentic commerce. Scores wallets, domains, IPs, and companies 0-100 before AI agents transact via x402 micropayments on Base
Last updated
1
3
MIT
x402 Counterparty Score
Server Details
Trust scores for x402 sellers: wash-trading, real buyers, verdict. $0.02/score via x402 on Base.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.1/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
Server CoherenceB
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 toolsget_sample_scoreARead-onlyInspect
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| sample | Yes | Always true: this response is a sample, not a live score. |
| source | Yes | Origin of the underlying data, e.g. "base-settlements" or "bazaar-directory". |
| subject | Yes | The x402 endpoint URL or pay-to address this score is about. |
| verdict | Yes | Decision-grade trust verdict on the counterparty. |
| delivery | No | 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. |
| confidence | Yes | Objective confidence from rule coverage and data completeness, 0 to 1. Never self-reported by an LLM. |
| updated_at | Yes | ISO 8601 UTC timestamp of when this score was computed. |
| sample_notice | Yes | Machine-readable warning that the data is stale sample data. |
| real_buyer_count | Yes | Number of distinct real buyers after wash-trading filtering. |
| repeat_buyer_rate | Yes | Share of real buyers that purchased more than once, 0 to 1. |
| wash_trading_ratio | Yes | Share of nominal settlement volume attributed to wash trading (self-dealing or funding-loop patterns), 0 to 1. |
Tool Definition Quality
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_counterpartyARead-onlyInspect
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subject | Yes | The 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
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | Origin of the underlying data, e.g. "base-settlements" or "bazaar-directory". |
| subject | Yes | The x402 endpoint URL or pay-to address this score is about. |
| verdict | Yes | Decision-grade trust verdict on the counterparty. |
| delivery | No | 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. |
| confidence | Yes | Objective confidence from rule coverage and data completeness, 0 to 1. Never self-reported by an LLM. |
| updated_at | Yes | ISO 8601 UTC timestamp of when this score was computed. |
| real_buyer_count | Yes | Number of distinct real buyers after wash-trading filtering. |
| repeat_buyer_rate | Yes | Share of real buyers that purchased more than once, 0 to 1. |
| wash_trading_ratio | Yes | Share of nominal settlement volume attributed to wash trading (self-dealing or funding-loop patterns), 0 to 1. |
Tool Definition Quality
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 ($0.02/call), data sources (Base on-chain data, x402 Bazaar catalog), and a freshness condition (score only sold if refreshed within 24 hours). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling, though the purpose is clear enough to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceTrust scoring, scam detection, and EAS attestations for ERC-8004 + x402 agents on Base.Last updated18691MIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceReputation scoring for AI agent wallets on Base. 9 tools for trust scores, fraud checks, blacklist lookups, leaderboard, badge generation, and agent registration with x402 payment verification.Last updated9671MIT
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenancePay-per-use AI security and research tools for autonomous agents on Base, enabling honeypot detection, risk assessment, wallet analysis, and yield optimization via the x402 protocol.Last updated