AgentIndex x402

Agent Health Check

agent_health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fresh operational audit of any public agent or paid API: reachability, latency, HTTP status, x402 challenge, price/network/payTo, OpenAPI, agent card and MCP manifest. Returns a 0-100 score, verdict and issues. Try GET /agent-health/sample.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public agent, MCP or x402 endpoint URL to audit.
`method`	No	HTTP method for the target endpoint; defaults to GET.	GET

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`x402`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`origin`	Yes
`target`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`discovery`	Yes
`latency_ms`	Yes
`operational`	Yes
`x402_receipt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / method / description

Added value: +"HTTP method for the target endpoint; defaults to GET."

addedInput schema / properties / url / description

Added value: +"Public agent, MCP or x402 endpoint URL to audit."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "discovery": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "latency_ms": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "operational": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "origin": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "target": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "enum": [
+        "operational",
+        "degraded",
+        "unreachable"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "x402": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "x402_receipt": {
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "url",
+    "origin",
+    "operational",
+    "verdict",
+    "score",
+    "latency_ms",
+    "target",
+    "x402",
+    "discovery",
+    "issues"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some value beyond that with 'Fresh' (implying no cached results) and by disclosing that it will make live outbound calls against the target's x402 challenge and manifests, but it says nothing about rate limits, whether auditing certain targets requires payment, or failure/timeout behavior.

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?

One dense, well front-loaded sentence states scope, then the return summary, then a sample pointer. No filler, though the enumerated checklist is packed tightly enough that it reads more like a feature list than guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values (it summarizes them briefly anyway), and the audit scope is fully covered. The remaining gap is selection guidance against sibling tools, which is a usage issue rather than a completeness hole for invoking this tool.

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 both 'url' and 'method' are already documented with types and a default. The description only implies the target must be public and adds nothing about URL format, supported schemes, or how 'method' interacts with the x402/OpenAPI checks; 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('operational audit of any public agent or paid API') and enumerates exactly what is inspected (reachability, latency, HTTP status, x402 challenge, OpenAPI, agent card, MCP manifest). It is unambiguous what the tool does, but it never positions itself against the nearest sibling, notably 'probe', so an agent must guess which audit tool to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint is 'Try GET /agent-health/sample', which is a pointer to a sample endpoint rather than a selection rule, and the sibling 'probe' is never mentioned or excluded.

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

All AgentIndex x402 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context Every Agent Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and keep it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.