Skip to main content
Glama

x402 trust score for an endpoint (paid)

x402_trust_score

Check an x402 endpoint's trust score and payment verdict before paying to avoid dead, fraudulent, or hijacked services. Returns price, confidence band, and flags.

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. 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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the paid per-call model with auto-pay-or-quote fallback, live-probing and auto-adoption of uncataloged endpoints, the low-confidence first-contact flag, the side effect of refreshing the free public snapshot, and the single-EU-vantage latency caveat. It also enumerates verdict semantics (proceed/caution/avoid/parameterize/unverified/not-payable/free) and what each means for the caller.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

The content is front-loaded and each clause is informative, but it is delivered as one sprawling paragraph dense with nested parentheticals and duplicated verdict explanations. The sheer length and lack of visual structure make it hard to scan, even though almost nothing is padding.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the sole source of behavioral and return-shape information, and it covers the score, verdict vocabulary, price/band/flags fields, probe stats, templated-endpoint handling, and victory conditions comprehensively. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning about the single `resource` argument: it may be cataloged or uncataloged (triggering a live probe), and it may still contain an unresolved template placeholder (e.g. {slug}, :slug), which the caller must resolve. That goes beyond the schema's bare URL example.

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 gives a precise verb+resource+scope: a trust score (0-100, grade A-F) for a SPECIFIC x402 endpoint, cataloged or not. It is unambiguous about what the tool produces. However, it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. x402_trust_bulk for many endpoints, x402_trust_preview, x402_trust_leaderboard), so differentiation is left implicit.

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 a clear trigger: 'Call this BEFORE paying an unknown x402 endpoint to avoid dead, fraudulent, or recently-hijacked services,' and frames it as the one call that answers 'WHETHER and at WHAT PRICE.' This is strong context, but no explicit when-not exclusions or named alternative tools are given.

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