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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one provides a free stale sample for testing response parsing, the other is a paid decision-grade scoring service. No overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_sample_score and score_x402_counterparty. The naming is predictable and clear.
With only two tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for a scoring service. A sample tool and a production tool cover the essential workflow without unnecessary extras.
The tool surface covers the core use case (test with sample, then get real score) with no dead ends. Missing features like history or bulk scoring are minor gaps for a targeted service.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output 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
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that data is stale, free, no input required, and expired by design. Adds significant context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, with no contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, well-structured, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and existing output schema, the description covers the return schema and intended purpose comprehensively for a sample tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters exist, so description doesn't need to explain them. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there is no need for additional parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it returns a stale sample score, explicitly names the exact response schema, and distinguishes itself from the paid sibling tool score_x402_counterparty.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to use (validate response parsing) and when not to (for fresh scores, use score_x402_counterparty), providing clear context and alternatives.
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.
| 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
| 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
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses cost per call, data freshness limitation, and the data sources (Base on-chain settlement data and x402 Bazaar catalog). These traits are critical for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool. There is no contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence presenting the core purpose and output, and the second sentence adding cost, data source, and freshness constraints. Every part is essential and front-loaded; no superfluous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, existing output schema, and annotation), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, input type, output metrics, cost, freshness, and data source. The presence of an output schema means return value details are not needed here. The description is fully sufficient for an agent to correctly select and use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers the 'subject' parameter with a description, but the tool description adds clarity by specifying exact formats and examples (URL or pay-to address) and emphasizing the need for exactness from the catalog or handshake. This adds actionable guidance beyond the schema's description, justifying a score above the baseline of 3 for 100% schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it returns a trust verdict (trusted/caution/avoid) with specific metrics (wash-trading ratio, real-buyer count, repeat-buyer rate) for a counterparty defined as an x402 endpoint URL or pay-to address. This is a specific action with a clear resource and outputs, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_sample_score' which likely provides sample data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context on when to use: for scoring a counterparty from the x402 Bazaar catalog or handshake. It also mentions cost ($0.02/call) and freshness condition (sold only if refreshed within 24 hours). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives, leaving the distinction from the sibling tool implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$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!