F
licenseNot graded
qualityD
maintenanceProvides a pre-signature payment-risk verdict (GO/HOLD/STOP) for x402 payments based on counterparty reputation, price anomaly, and OFAC sanctions.
-
x402 Compatibility Intelligence
Server Details
Preflight x402 payment compatibility with structured risk evidence and remediation guidance.
The last two health checks of this connector failed. If this server requires authentication, missing or expired test credentials may be the cause. A test profile lets Glama authenticate for health checks and discover tools; it is separate from your personal connections.
If you are the author, claim ownership, then add or update a test profile under Admin → Test Profile.
- Status
- Unhealthy
- Uptime
- 0.0% over 50 days
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2026-07-28
- URL
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation4/5
With only one tool there is no risk of selecting the wrong one, so distinguishability is trivially satisfied. The score is not a 5 because the single tool bundles several distinct checks (compatibility, replay, settlement) that an agent cannot address separately.
Naming Consistency5/5
The lone tool uses a clear snake_case, domain-prefixed name that exactly matches the server's stated purpose. There is no mixed convention to penalize.
Tool Count3/5
A single tool is thin even for a narrow validator: the description implies multiple separable capabilities (facilitator lookup, network/asset support, replay risk, settlement risk) compressed into one opaque call. It is defensible as a one-shot pre-signing check but leaves no granularity.
Completeness3/5
The validation surface is reasonably broad for pre-signing checks, but there is no discovery side (e.g. listing supported facilitators, networks, or assets) and no post-payment settlement verification. An agent can validate but cannot explore or confirm outcomes.
Available Tools
1 toolx402_compatibility_intelligencex402 Payment Pre-Sign Validation, Facilitator Compatibility, Protocol Diagnostics & Settlement RiskBInspect
Validate an x402 payment before signing: check facilitator compatibility, payment-protocol diagnostics, network and asset support, replay risk, and settlement risk from maintained compatibility evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offer | Yes | ||
| policy | Yes | ||
| discovery_mode | No | none | |
| facilitator_url | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| reasons | Yes | |
| verdict | Yes | |
| evidence | Yes | |
| recovery | No | |
| selected | Yes | |
| assessed_at | Yes | |
| limitations | Yes | |
| safe_to_sign | Yes |
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully names the validation dimensions, including replay risk and settlement risk, and notes that evidence is 'maintained compatibility evidence.' However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it contacts an external facilitator, what permissions are needed, or what side effects may occur.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The colon-separated list efficiently enumerates the validation checks, making it easy to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a complex nested schema with four parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations. The description conveys the high-level purpose but leaves key parameter semantics and behavioral details unspecified. The output schema handles return values, but the input-side complexity is not sufficiently addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but largely does not. It loosely maps to facilitator_url and to policy-based network/asset checks, but it does not explain the offer structure, policy constraints such as max_amount_atomic, or the discovery_mode parameter.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: validate an x402 payment before signing. It enumerates the checks performed (facilitator compatibility, protocol diagnostics, network/asset support, replay risk, settlement risk), so the tool's purpose is clear. There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, but within its own scope it is specific.
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 phrase 'before signing' gives clear temporal context for when to use the tool. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but no sibling tools exist, so the main usage condition is adequately stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Related MCP Connectors
x402 payment security and pre-execution transaction risk screening for autonomous AI agents.
Preflight MCP OAuth compatibility with structured evidence and remediation guidance.
Hosted x402 preflight for action authority, payment mandate, destination, expiry and replay.
Operated by SpendPreflight: sanctions screening and allow/hold/block preflight for x402 payments.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables agents and developers to check x402 endpoints, assess scores and wallet risks, authorize payments with spending rules, and report outcomes before an agent pays.61MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables AI assistants and agents to vet a stablecoin or x402 payment before it is sent, returning an approve, hold, or reject decision from instant rule checks and an optional locally-run risk model. Fails closed, so malformed input or an unreachable model yields a hold rather than an approval.4422 PyPIApache 2.0
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides counterparty risk checks for any EVM address, returning malicious-history flags, tiered risk scoring, and plain-language summaries via x402 payment.-
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.