Wicked MCP server

paywall_create_route

Create an x402 paywall for one HTTP endpoint, charging per call in USDC sent directly to your payout wallet and optionally proxying paid requests to an upstream backend.

Instructions

[x402 Paywall] Paywall a new endpoint with x402 pay-per-call, settled in USDC straight to payTo. With upstreamUrl, paid requests are proxied to your backend. Applies live within ~20s (needs PAYWALL_API_KEY).

Use when you want to put one HTTP endpoint behind x402 pay-per-call, paid in USDC straight to your wallet. Not for many routes at once (use paywall_import_routes).

Behavior: writes state upstream (not read-only); needs the credentials or wallet signature noted above where applicable.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "price": "<price>",
      "network": "<network>",
      "payTo": "<payTo>"
    },
    "name": "paywall_create_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	Route path, e.g. "/weather".
`asset`	No	Payment token contract; defaults to USDC on the network.
`payTo`	Yes	Your payout wallet (0x…). Settlement pays here directly; nothing is custodied.
`price`	Yes	Decimal USD amount, e.g. "0.01" or "$0.01".
`method`	No	Default GET.
`network`	Yes	CAIP-2 id: Base mainnet eip155:8453, Base Sepolia eip155:84532.
`description`	No	Up to 200 chars: letters, digits, space . _ -
`upstreamUrl`	No	Your https backend. Omit for the demo confirmation payload.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds genuine behavioral context beyond annotations: changes apply live within ~20s, PAYWALL_API_KEY is required, and with upstreamUrl paid requests are proxied to the caller's backend. The closing 'writes state upstream (not read-only)' line merely restates the readOnlyHint=false annotation and is redundant, but the timing and proxying details are real value.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded and structured with clear Use/Behavior sections, but the USDC-to-payTo settlement is stated twice and the trailing 'Behavior:' sentence largely repeats the annotations. Some trimming would sharpen it without losing information.

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?

For an 8-param create tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers side effects, activation latency, credentials, and proxying well. It stops short of indicating what a successful call returns (route record, confirmation payload), which would matter given no output schema is provided.

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 all eight parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces payTo and upstreamUrl semantics but adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (paywall a new endpoint with x402 pay-per-call) and specifies the settlement model (USDC straight to payTo) and proxying behavior. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the batch sibling by naming paywall_import_routes, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when ('put one HTTP endpoint behind x402 pay-per-call') and an explicit when-not with the named alternative ('Not for many routes at once (use paywall_import_routes)'). Nothing is left to inference about which tool to pick.

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

Deploy Server