x402 Bazaar

deployer_rep

Read-onlyIdempotent

Who created this token — and can you trust them? — Profiles the token's creator wallet: how much history it has, how much of the supply the creator still holds, and whether ownership is renounced — rolled into a 0-100 reputation score with signals. A fresh wallet holding 20% of supply with no renounce is the classic rug setup; this is the forensics layer other checks skip. Required input: address. Priced $0.04 per call over x402 on Base; send a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, or get 1 free call/day per tool. No wallet or API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	Token contract address

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description.
`service`	No	The service id that answered.
`checkedAt`	No	ISO-8601 timestamp of when the underlying reads were taken.

Schema Changelog

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

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / data / description

Previous value: -"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the service description above."New value: +"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "data"
-]
```
AddedAug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses operational and behavioral details an agent needs: cost per call, network and transport (x402 on Base), optional x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, free daily allowance, and the fact that no wallet or API key is required. It also reveals the output shape: a 0-100 reputation score with signals.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the purpose appears first, followed by concrete behavioral context, pricing, auth details, and an illustrative rug setup. Some phrasing is promotional and the required-address note repeats schema information, but overall every section serves a useful purpose.

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 one simple required parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essentials: what the tool profiles, when to use it, what the result contains, what input to supply, and thecost/auth constraints. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call this tool and how to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema fully describes the single parameter (`address` as 'Token contract address') and marks it required, so schema coverage is 100%. The description merely repeats 'Required input: address' without adding format, chain, or validation details; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: it profles the token's creator wallet, covering wallet history, supply still held, renounced ownership, and a 0-100 reputation score with signals. It also distinguishes itself from generic risk/rug tools by presenting itself as a forensic layer for creator-wallet trust.

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 gives a concrete trigger example: 'A fresh wallet holding 20% of supply with no renounce is the classic rug setup,' which signals when this tool should be used for deeper due diligence. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of full explicitness.

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

All x402 Bazaar 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Despite excellent per-tool descriptions, the set contains many near-overlapping tools: rug_score, batch_risk, pre_trade_gate, and deep_dd all assess token risk; wallet_portfolio, wallet_networth, and wallet_tokens all list balances; b20_safety, b20_gate, and b20_dossier overlap heavily; url_extract, web_extract, ai_extract, and url_to_json also blur boundaries. An agent would struggle to consistently pick the right tool without reading every description.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case verb_noun (token_price, rug_score, address_trust, file_convert, safe_to_send). Minor deviations: noun-only names like holders, basename, deep_dd, business_days, and new_tokens, plus the abbreviation deep_dd, slightly break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

137 tools is far beyond the 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Even as a marketplace bazaar, this is an enormous, unwieldy surface where many tools overlap and each contributes only a sliver of unique value.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent purpose — a pay-per-call bazaar covering on-chain analysis, wallet intelligence, token due diligence, plus generic text/web/finance utilities — the surface is extensive and covers most read-only workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist (no historical price series, no swap execution, no true on-chain write actions), but the set is not severely incomplete for its stated niche.

Resources

Need Help?