Skip to main content
Glama

x402 trust score for an endpoint (paid)

x402_trust_score

Evaluate an x402 endpoint's trust score, verdict, and advertised price before paying, with flags and provider verification to avoid dead, fraudulent, or hijacked services.

Instructions

Trust score (0-100, grade A-F, or '?' when unmeasured) for a SPECIFIC x402 endpoint -- cataloged or not (uncataloged endpoints are live-probed on first query, auto-adopted, score carries a low-confidence first-contact flag). PLUS a machine-readable verdict ('recommendation': proceed|caution|avoid|parameterize|unverified|not-payable|free), the advertised price ('advertised.amountUsd'), a confidence-adjusted band ('scoreRange'), and structured flags ('flagsDetailed' with code/severity/message; any severity 'error' means avoid). The 'parameterize' verdict (with 'templated':true) means the resource URL still contains an unresolved template placeholder (e.g. {slug}, :slug or %7B…%7D) but we DO have a real signal (scored probes or a discovery fallback): substitute a valid value first, then the health metrics apply to the resolved URL. The 'unverified' verdict (grade '?') means we have NO measurement at all (every probe excluded and no discovery payment requirements to fall back on): it is unknown, not bad, so verify the endpoint yourself before paying. The 'not-payable' verdict (grade '?') means the URL answers a 402 with an EMPTY accepts[] (an auth/API-key gate such as sign-in-with-x), or answers a bare 401/403 with no payment envelope, so it is not an x402-payable resource at all and there is nothing to settle. The 'free' verdict (grade '?') means the endpoint answers plain requests with data (HTTP 200, no payment envelope) and has never presented a payment challenge: a free resource with no payment flow to grade, unmeasured by design, not a negative verdict. For templated per-item endpoints that ARE payable, a varying payTo/price is EXPECTED (one wallet/price per item): the report surfaces 'stats.payToVaries'+'payToDistinct30d' and 'advertised.amountRange30d' as a 'payto-varies'/'price-varies' note rather than a 'payto-changed-recently' hijack error; always pay the payTo in the live 402 quote, not a cached listing. 'stats.scoredProbes30d' vs 'stats.excluded30d' show how many probes actually back the score. When the endpoint's host completed provider verification (domain control proven with a public key in /.well-known/x402-trust.txt plus a confirmed contact email), the report carries 'providerVerified': true, 'providerName' (the provider's own organization name) and 'providerContact' (the confirmed contact address); verified endpoints also carry the 'provider-verified' info flag; verification never changes the score. Includes the full component breakdown, the provider-advertised 'serviceName' and 'description' (unverified provider claims, shown next to our independent metrics), and 30-day on-chain stats. Note: 'stats.avgLatencyMs' is measured from a single EU vantage point and includes network distance to the endpoint (see 'stats.latencyVantage'), so a geographically distant endpoint reads slower even when its server is fast. One call answers WHETHER and at WHAT PRICE to use an endpoint. Call this BEFORE paying an unknown x402 endpoint to avoid dead, fraudulent, or recently-hijacked services. Each paid call also refreshes the endpoint's free public snapshot (page, badge, card) immediately. Pay-per-call over x402; auto-pays if a wallet is configured, otherwise returns the price quote.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resourceYesFull x402 resource URL to evaluate, e.g. https://api.example.com/v1/thing

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it is exceptionally transparent. It discloses live-probing of uncataloged endpoints, auto-payment or price-quote behavior, latency measurement from a single EU vantage point, provider verification not affecting the score, and the meaning of every verdict.

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 long, but the complexity of the tool justifies it. It front-loads the core purpose, then systematically explains verdicts, metrics, and caveats. A few sections could be tightened without loss, but every major behavior is covered and clearly organized.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description does remarkable work explaining the return fields: score, grade, verdict, advertised amounts, scoreRange, flagsDetailed, stats, providerVerified, providerName, serviceName, description, and latency caveats. An agent has enough context to interpret the tool's response correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning to the single 'resource' parameter: it explains template placeholder resolution, live 402 quote handling, payTo variation, and how the URL relates to verdicts like 'parameterize' and 'not-payable'. This goes well beyond the schema's simple 'Full x402 resource URL to evaluate'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns a trust score, grade, verdict, price, and flags for a SPECIFIC x402 endpoint. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing endpoint-specific evaluation ('for a SPECIFIC x402 endpoint') and the paid, per-call nature, contrasting with bulk, leaderboard, and preview siblings.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Call this BEFORE paying an unknown x402 endpoint to avoid dead, fraudulent, or recently-hijacked services,' and explains what to do for each verdict (parameterize, unverified, not-payable, free). It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use guidance.

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