route-verdict-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

route_check

Audit an x402 endpoint's trust and liveness before paying or relying on it, returning a verdict, trust score, deductions, terms, schema quality, catalog presence, and prior-check diff.

Instructions

Audit an x402 endpoint's trust and liveness before paying or relying on it.

Calls RouteVerdict (POST /v1/check, $0.05 USDC on Base via x402).
Returns a verdict (TRUSTED / CAUTION / AVOID) with a 0-100 trust
score, an itemized deduction list, a live 402 probe of the target
(the target is never paid), its published terms, discovery-schema
quality, catalog presence in the CDP Bazaar and PayAI indexes, and
a diff against the last check of the same URL.

Args:
    resource_url: Full URL of the x402 resource to audit.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resource_url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

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: it discloses the paid cost ($0.05 USDC on Base via x402), the underlying endpoint and method, and the crucial safety fact that the target endpoint is probed with a live 402 but never paid. It also describes the diff-against-last-check behavior, which an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the cost/mechanics, then the return payload, then the single argument — a sensible ordering with no filler. The return-value enumeration is dense and somewhat overlong given an output schema already exists, but every clause is informative rather than redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return semantics needn't be spelled out, yet the description still summarizes the verdict categories and score, which helps an agent decide downstream actions. Combined with disclosed pricing, probe safety, and the single required argument, nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 0% and the single property has no description, so the description must compensate; it explains the parameter as the 'Full URL of the x402 resource to audit,' which clarifies both format (full URL) and what must be supplied (an x402 resource). It does not state format constraints, schemes, or error behavior for malformed URLs, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Audit an x402 endpoint's trust and liveness.' It names the actual backend call (RouteVerdict, POST /v1/check) and the deliverable (a TRUSTED/CAUTION/AVOID verdict), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. No siblings exist that it needs to be distinguished from.

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?

'before paying or relying on it' gives a clear triggering condition for the tool. There are no sibling tools to route against, so no alternatives or exclusions are needed, but it stops short of stating when NOT to run it (e.g. non-x402 URLs, already-verified endpoints in the same session).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools

route_checkA