x402 Bazaar

sellability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Can you actually SELL it — or is it a honeypot? — The hard honeypot question, answered three ways: security simulation (honeypot, cannot-sell-all, sell/buy tax, transfer-pausable), a LIVE transfer simulation we run ourselves from a real holder (reverts/taxed?), and exit liquidity. Returns a hard canSell verdict with reasons. Selling is where rugs hide — check before you buy. Required input: address. Priced $0.08 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
`size`	No	Position size USD (exit check)
`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.

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"
-]
```

Changed1 schema field changedAug 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "checkedAt": {
+      "description": "ISO-8601 timestamp of when the underlying reads were taken.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "description": "The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the service description above.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "service": {
+      "description": "The service id that answered.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantive context beyond annotations: it discloses the three simulation components, returns a 'hard canSell verdict with reasons', mentions per-call pricing and free-tier access, and explicitly says no wallet or API key is required. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is somewhat long but well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The pricing and access details are useful operational context, though the 'Selling is where rugs hide — check before you buy' line is somewhat promotional and redundant with the opening question.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers required input, optional parameter purpose, access method, pricing, free usage, and authentication requirements. A bit more explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings would make it fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both 'address' and 'size'. The description restates that address is required and hints that size is for exit checks, but adds no new format, units, or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: checking whether a token can actually be sold (honeypot detection) via three simulation approaches and a canSell verdict. It names the resource being evaluated (token address) and the core question, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like exit_liquidity or pre_trade_gate.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool — 'check before you buy' and 'Selling is where rugs hide' — and states the required input and pricing model. However, it does not explicitly explain when NOT to use it or how it compares to related alternatives, providing only implicit usage context.

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

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

Need Help?