x402 Bazaar

token_compare

Read-onlyIdempotent

2-5 candidates in, one ranked pick out — Agents choose between tokens, not around them. Pass 2-5 Base token addresses → each gets a 0-100 quality score (safety-weighted: rug score first, then liquidity depth, then momentum), ranked best-first, with a named pick — or an honest 'none pass the gate'. One call returns a decision instead of a dozen data dumps. Required input: addresses. Priced $0.05 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
`addresses`	Yes	Token addresses (comma-separated, 2-5)

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations carry only a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoring behavior (0-100, safety-weighted with rug score first, then liquidity depth, then momentum), ranking order, the fallback 'none pass the gate', and pricing/auth requirements. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics, but 'no wallet or API key required' implies an analysis-only call.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and then gives scoring, output, pricing, and auth details. Some phrasing is slightly redundant ('one ranked pick out' and 'one call returns a decision'), but it remains compact and every major fact earns its place.

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?

With only one input parameter and no output schema, the description explains the expected output semantics well: scores, weighting, ranking, named pick, and the fallback. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result. The exact response structure and edge-case behavior are not spelled out, which prevents a top score.

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?

The input schema already documents the single 'addresses' parameter as comma-separated and 2-5 tokens. The description adds meaning beyond that by specifying the network ('Base token addresses') and framing the input as selection candidates. The extra Base-chain detail is materially useful for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific, active formulation: 'Pass 2-5 Base token addresses → each gets a 0-100 quality score... ranked best-first'. This clearly identifies the tool as a comparative token-decision helper and distinguishes it from per-token data lookups via the opening contrast 'choose between tokens, not around them'.

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?

It states the exact intended context: when anagent must choose among 2-5 token candidates, and contrasts itself with 'a dozen data dumps', implying it should replace multiple lookups. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state exclusions such as 'for >5 tokens use another tool', but the usage context is clear.

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?