Tanod MCP server

agentscan: test an x402 payment and get a signed receipt of what the gate saw (health ping)

test_x402_payment

Make a real x402 payment to verify your wallet and client, receiving an Ed25519-signed receipt. Use it for scheduled health checks; failed payments stay unsettled and name the reason.

Instructions

agentscan: Make a real x402 payment to test your wallet and client, with a signed receipt. To check a signed authorization without paying use x402_payment_status; to vet a seller before paying use check_x402_endpoint_before_paying. Returns what the payment gate saw, with an Ed25519-signed UTC receipt; a sha256 you send is signed with the time, as a simple proof that it existed then. Built for a scheduled health ping: every call settles a new payment on-chain. A failed payment is never settled, and its 402 names the reason (wrong network, amount or payTo, expired or bad signature). The receipt key is at /.well-known/tanod-receipt-key. Typically 1-4 s (one on-chain settlement). Price: USD 0.001. No free tier. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/x402-payment-test-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sha256`	No	Optional: a SHA-256 hash as 64 hex characters. It is signed together with the time, as a simple proof that something with this hash existed then.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No
`note`	No
`paid`	No
`rail`	No
`asset`	No
`error`	No	Only on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
`payer`	No
`key_id`	No
`scheme`	No
`catalog`	No
`network`	No
`receipt`	No
`heartbeat`	No
`signature`	No
`amount_usd`	No
`timings_ms`	No
`verify_url`	No
`facilitator`	No
`transaction`	No
`explorer_url`	No
`network_name`	No
`amount_atomic`	No
`public_key_url`	No
`signature_algorithm`	No
`next_suggested_check_s`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that every call settles a new on-chain payment, that failed payments are never settled and their 402 names the reason, the 1-4s latency from one on-chain settlement, the USD 0.001 price with no free tier, and where the receipt verification key lives. This is the financial-risk context the readOnlyHint=false / idempotentHint=false annotations imply but do not explain.

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 purpose and sibling routing, then cost/latency/failure semantics and a docs link. Dense but every clause carries operational value; the repeated 'agentscan:' branding prefix is the only marginal waste.

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-value shape need not be spelled out, and the description still covers settlement behavior, failure modes, latency, price, and key discovery. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this paid tool is missing.

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% and the single optional sha256 param is fully documented in the schema, including its 64-hex format. The description restates the signing semantics (hash signed with time as existence proof) without adding format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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 (make a real x402 payment to test wallet/client) and immediately names the two sibling tools it is not (x402_payment_status, check_x402_endpoint_before_paying). An agent can distinguish this from every other x402 tool without opening a 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?

Explicit routing: use x402_payment_status to check a signed authorization without paying, use check_x402_endpoint_before_paying to vet a seller before paying. It also states the intended usage pattern (scheduled health ping). When-to-use and alternatives are fully covered.

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

Deploy Server