forum-labs/payfetch
Allows using Coinbase CDP wallet for key management and signing transactions for automated payments of HTTP 402 responses, settled in Base USDC.
payfetch
payfetch lets an AI agent fetch a URL and, when the server answers HTTP 402 (the x402 payment protocol), pay for it automatically, but only within a spending policy you control. It is non-custodial: you bring your own wallet, the key stays on your machine, and no MCP tool can raise the limits. It ships as a local stdio MCP server with a small library and CLI alongside it.
The reference x402 clients pay whatever a 402 asks for. payfetch is the opposite: the policy and safety surface is the point. Per-call, per-day, and per-host spend caps; host allow and deny lists; a human-approval threshold; optional pre-payment trust and safety checks; and an append-only local receipt for every attempt, whether it paid, was denied, was a dry run, or failed.
Website: https://forum-labs.com
Status and scope
Version 1.0.0. Policy schema
p3f.policy.v1, client schemap3f-1.0.0.x402 only, Base USDC, the
exactscheme. Solana-settled x402, theuptoscheme, and MPP are parsed and then refused with a reason recorded in your receipts.Requires Node 22 or newer. Windows is not supported.
USD is treated as USDC at 1.00. Budgets are denominated in USD and settle in USDC, so a depeg makes the caps wrong by the depeg factor.
Related MCP server: PipRail
Install
The package ships compiled JavaScript, so there is no build step and no tsx for
consumers. Run it on demand with npx:
# Operator CLI (status, verify, clear-autodeny, report):
npx @forum-labs/payfetch status
# MCP server (what an MCP client launches):
npx -p @forum-labs/payfetch payfetch-mcpThe package exposes two binaries: payfetch (the operator CLI) and payfetch-mcp
(the stdio MCP server). Because there are two, the server is launched with
npx -p @forum-labs/payfetch payfetch-mcp; the -p flag selects the named binary.
Quickstart
1. Configure a wallet (pick exactly one signer)
payfetch refuses to start if zero or more than one signer source is set. It never guesses which wallet to spend from.
Raw private key, the simplest option. Use a dedicated low-balance wallet:
export PAYFETCH_PRIVATE_KEY=0xabc...Key file, which must be mode 600 (payfetch refuses to start otherwise):
printf '0xabc...' > ~/.payfetch-wallet.key && chmod 600 ~/.payfetch-wallet.key
export PAYFETCH_KEY_FILE=~/.payfetch-wallet.keyCoinbase CDP server wallet, where the keys are managed by CDP under your account instead of being pasted into an environment variable:
export PAYFETCH_CDP_API_KEY_ID=...
export PAYFETCH_CDP_API_KEY_SECRET=...
export PAYFETCH_CDP_WALLET_SECRET=...
export PAYFETCH_CDP_ACCOUNT_NAME=payfetch # optional; stable name across restarts2. Wire it into an MCP client
Claude Desktop, in claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"payfetch": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "-p", "@forum-labs/payfetch", "payfetch-mcp"],
"env": {
"PAYFETCH_PRIVATE_KEY": "0xabc...",
"PAYFETCH_TEST_MODE": "1"
}
}
}
}Claude Code:
claude mcp add payfetch \
--env PAYFETCH_PRIVATE_KEY=0xabc... \
--env PAYFETCH_TEST_MODE=1 \
-- npx -y -p @forum-labs/payfetch payfetch-mcpThe examples set PAYFETCH_TEST_MODE=1 so your first runs settle on Base Sepolia
and never touch mainnet. Drop it when you are ready to spend real USDC.
3. First paid fetch
Quote before you pay. payment_quote returns the terms, the selected quote, the
trust-check result, your remaining budgets, and the policy decision (would_pay or
would_deny). It signs nothing and reserves nothing:
{ "url": "https://api.example.com/paid-endpoint" }Dry run the whole pipeline. paid_fetch with "dryRun": true runs the exact code
path a real payment takes, up to but not including the signature.
Pay for real with paid_fetch:
{ "url": "https://api.example.com/paid-endpoint", "maxAmountUsd": 0.25 }maxAmountUsd tightens the per-call cap for this one call. It can only lower the
limit, never raise it. If the price is above your approval threshold, approval is
required first (see Approvals). The result carries the response body, the payment
outcome and transaction reference, any warnings, and a receiptId.
The spending policy
Policy lives in {dataDir}/config.json (the data dir defaults to ~/.payfetch).
On first run payfetch writes the defaults there so you can read and edit exactly
what you are running. A missing file falls back to the defaults. An invalid file
fails closed: every paying tool returns policy_config_invalid until you fix it, so
a typo never silently restores a cap you lowered. The file is re-read when its mtime
changes.
Only you can change the policy. No MCP tool mutates it and no tool clears an
auto-deny. Agent-supplied parameters such as maxAmountUsd can only tighten, never
loosen. Every denied paid_fetch result repeats this back to the agent so a
prompt-injected model cannot mistake the boundary for something negotiable.
Caps
caps.perCallUsd(default 1.00): maximum for a single payment.caps.dailyUsd(default 2.00): maximum per UTC day.caps.perHostDailyUsd(default 1.00): maximum per host per UTC day.caps.totalUsd(default null): optional lifetime cap.
Caps are hard and reserve before paying. A signed authorization is held against the budget until it provably expires, so budgets can over-count but never under-count. At most one payment attempt happens per request, so a retry loop cannot drain the wallet.
There is deliberately no default lifetime cap. The dedicated wallet's balance
already bounds lifetime spend on-chain (see Security), so a software lifetime ceiling
would be one more field to forget. Set totalUsd only if you want a software
ceiling on top of a larger-balance wallet.
Allow and deny lists
mode is open by default. Set it to allowlist to pay only hosts listed in
allow. Patterns in deny are always refused and win over allow. A pattern like
*.example.com matches subdomains, not the apex.
Approvals
A payment whose price is strictly above approval.thresholdUsd (default 0.10)
triggers approval. An approval authorizes one payment only. There is no "always
allow", and it never widens future authority.
elicit(default): the client prompts a human with the host, resource, amount, network and asset, guard results, and today's remaining budgets. They approve once or deny. The prompt times out after 120 seconds and is then treated as a denial. Some MCP clients cannot service an elicitation prompt: as of Claude Code v2.1.198 and current Claude Desktop, neither does (Claude Code does not advertise the elicitation capability; Claude Desktop advertises it but cancels the prompt immediately). When a client adds elicitation support, the prompt works with no payfetch change. payfetch tells apart a real human "deny" from a client that simply cannot ask, and it never treats "cannot ask" as a silent denial. When a payment is blocked only because the client cannot elicit, the tool result says so and names the ways to allow it.queue: the payment is not executed. The result returns anapprovalId. A human with approval authority resolves it with theapprove_pendingtool. An approved entry is a grant to re-run: the follow-uppaid_fetchruns the full pipeline again and matches on host and exact amount. It expires after one hour, and drifted terms require a fresh approval.deny: anything above the threshold is refused, for unattended fleets.
For clients that cannot prompt a human, two config-only settings let above-threshold
payments through without a dialog. Both are explicit operator authorization, not the
agent's, and neither is reachable from a tool. approval.preApprovedUpToUsd (default
null) auto-approves above-threshold payments up to a ceiling.
approval.preApprovedHosts (default empty) auto-approves specific hosts. Both still
pass through every cap and every guard.
Approval never bypasses caps. An approved payment that fails budget reservation is still denied.
approve_pending with {"action":"list"} is always allowed and shows the queue.
Approving or denying an entry requires PAYFETCH_APPROVER=1 in the server's
environment; without it the tool returns approver_not_enabled. An agent must not
approve its own payments, so the server refuses to start if PAYFETCH_APPROVER=1 is
combined with a queue-capable approval mode.
Receipts
Every outcome, including free fetches, dry runs, denials, and unknown-settlement cases, appends one immutable JSON line to the ledger:
{dataDir}/ledger/{yyyy-mm}.jsonl # append-only, monthly rotation, fsync on payments
{dataDir}/state.json # disposable cache, rebuildable from the ledger
{dataDir}/downloads/{receiptId} # response bodies when responseMode is "file"A receipt records the URL, method, and host; the outcome and deny code; the pipeline
steps traversed; the selected quote and a tally of rejected quotes; guard results;
approval info; the payment (payer address, nonce, validBefore, settled amount,
transaction reference, and whether it confirmed); the budgets at decision time; and
an HTTP summary. Key material, signatures, full payment payloads, response bodies,
and request header values are never stored. Response bodies are recorded as a
SHA-256 hash plus a byte count. URL query strings are stored, because this is your
own audit trail on your own disk; guard calls, by contrast, strip the query (see
Security). Nothing is rewritten. Corrections append p3f.adjust.v1 records.
Query receipts with the list_receipts tool (filter by time, host, or outcome) or
spend_status (today's totals, holds, and recent payments). After repeated
paid-but-bad outcomes a host is auto-denied for 7 days; clear it out of band with
payfetch clear-autodeny <host>, never from a tool.
Trust and safety checks
payfetch can consult two checks before it pays. Both call paid Forum Labs APIs at
https://api.forum-labs.com, and both are self-dealing that is disclosed here rather
than buried: the guards call our own products. The default guard budget is 0, so by
default the client uses only those products' free tier. Any paid guard usage is
opt-in, budgeted with guards.*.dailyBudgetUsd > 0, and produces a receipt like any
other spend.
The trust check is on by default in advisory mode. Before paying, it asks whether the
target endpoint has a reliable history. In advisory mode it warns; in enforce mode it
blocks on the configured verdicts (unreliable by default). New endpoints without
enough history come back unrated and pass by default, so the check does not
strangle them. This check is the client's only outbound call to us; see Security for
exactly what it sends and how to turn it off.
The safety check is off by default. When enabled it screens a token mint you pass in
(tokenAddress) against the Forum Labs token safety API and blocks on a danger
verdict, or on a serial_rugger deployer verdict in deep mode. deep is always a
paid screen, so it needs dailyBudgetUsd > 0.
Security and disclosure
Read this before pointing payfetch at a funded wallet.
The wallet balance is your real limit
The primary control on how much a bug or a prompt-injected agent can spend is the balance of the wallet you point payfetch at, not the software caps. A wallet's balance is a hard on-chain bound: payfetch cannot spend a dollar that is not in the wallet, whatever the config says or the agent is told to do. So the first thing to get right is the wallet.
Create a fresh wallet, fund it with only the amount you are willing to lose entirely (a few dollars for a trial, a capped top-up for production), and give payfetch that wallet. Never your main wallet. Refill it deliberately rather than by standing order.
The caps, lists, approval threshold, and guards are the fine-grained layer on top. They shape rate, per-target exposure, and detection within that balance. They are real and enforced, but the wallet balance is the circuit breaker and the caps are the scalpel. Set both.
Key custody
Your key is never transmitted to us, never logged, and never written to the receipt
ledger. The ledger stores addresses and amounts, not keys, and that is asserted by a
test. Keys are read from the environment in-process to sign EIP-3009 payment
authorizations. A signed authorization is bounded to one asset, one amount, one
recipient, and one time window. If you use PAYFETCH_KEY_FILE, payfetch refuses to
start when the file is group- or world-readable, so chmod 600 it.
What the trust guard sends, and the off switch
While the trust guard is on, it makes one call to the Forum Labs trust API on every paid fetch. That call is the client's only egress to us. It sends the target endpoint with the query string stripped, plus a random per-install id. The query is stripped because a target URL's query can carry your own secrets; server-side we store a hash of the input, never the raw target, and the install id is used for aggregate counting only, never per-install profiling or resale. The install id is a random 32-hex value generated on first run and stored in your state file; delete the state file and it regenerates.
Turn the guard off with guards.trust.enabled: false. With it off, payfetch makes no
external call at all: no guard result, no network request, nothing dialed. That is
the complete off switch, and the honest cost of it is that operators who disable the
guard are invisible to our adoption instrument.
Optional outcome reporting (off by default)
Reporting is off by default and changes nothing unless you turn it on. When you report
an outcome, currently only per-incident with payfetch report <receiptId>, the client
reports the outcome of a completed payment attempt (paid and delivered, or paid and
not delivered), signed by your payment wallet and tied to the on-chain settlement, to
the trust API. This is a fact about the seller's conduct that you are reporting. It is
never a record of what you looked at. Lookups (guard checks, quotes, dry runs) are
never retained per consumer.
A report sends exactly these fields and nothing else: the endpoint {method, url}
with the query stripped; the outcome, derived from the receipt and never
agent-supplied; structural checks (settlementConfirmed, a coarse HTTP status
class, contentTypeOk, nonEmpty); the termsHash you paid under; the seller's
payTo address, which is already on-chain; a coarse amountBand rather than the
exact amount; the UTC day rather than an exact timestamp; and your payment wallet
address plus an EIP-712 signature over the payload. A report never carries the query
string, request headers or bodies, the response body, the receiptId, the exact
amount, or the exact timestamp. The install id never rides on the report path, so the
report wallet and the guard install id are never joined.
A settled x402 payment is already public (payer, payee, amount, and time are on the
chain). What a report adds is the outcome bit. On very-low-traffic endpoints a seller
may be able to infer that a report came from you, since the anonymity set is small; we
mitigate with day granularity and bucketed publication, and we state the residual here
rather than hide it. In this version the trust API verifies the signature
(recover(sig) === payer), so a stranger cannot report on your behalf, but it does
not yet prove the settlement, so reports are shown as unverified until they are
settlement-matched in a later version. We will not monetize, publish, or attempt to
deanonymize reporter wallets.
SSRF and private targets
Unless you set allowPrivateTargets: true, payfetch refuses non-http(s) schemes and
any host that resolves to loopback, RFC1918, link-local 169.254/16, CGNAT, or ULA.
A paying-fetch must not become the tool that exfiltrates 169.254.169.254. DNS is
pinned, so the vetted IP is the one dialed; every redirect hop is re-checked; and an
https to http downgrade aborts.
What payfetch does not protect against
Fetched content is untrusted input to your agent. A malicious page can tell the agent to fetch or pay somewhere else. payfetch bounds the damage with the dedicated wallet's balance and the caps, lists, approval threshold, receipts, and SSRF block, but it cannot make the agent wise. It cannot stop an injected agent from spending within policy, so keep the wallet balance small. For untrusted-content workloads, tighten the defaults:
{
"mode": "allowlist",
"allow": ["api.trusted-vendor.com"],
"caps": { "perCallUsd": 0.05, "dailyUsd": 0.50, "perHostDailyUsd": 0.25 },
"approval": { "thresholdUsd": 0.0, "mode": "elicit", "elicitFallback": "deny" },
"guards": { "trust": { "enabled": true, "mode": "enforce" } }
}thresholdUsd: 0.0 sends every payment to a human. mode: "enforce" blocks on an
unreliable verdict instead of only warning.
Two more limits worth stating plainly. There is no on-chain settlement verification yet: settlement facts come from the server's payment-response header, so a lying server can misreport. Both error directions over-count, which is the safe direction, and on-chain verification is planned. And the ledger is single-instance: one lockfile, one process, one machine. A fleet needs a policy plane that is not built here.
Configuration reference
Defaults, from {dataDir}/config.json, schema p3f.policy.v1:
Field | Default | Meaning |
|
|
|
|
| Host patterns permitted in allowlist mode. |
|
| Host patterns always refused (wins over |
|
| Max per single payment. |
|
| Max per UTC day. |
|
| Max per host per UTC day. |
|
| Optional lifetime cap. |
|
| Above this, approval is required. |
|
|
|
|
| Used when the client cannot elicit. Fail-closed. |
|
| No-dialog ceiling for above-threshold payments. |
|
| Hosts pre-approved to auto-pay above threshold. |
|
| The default-on trust check. |
|
|
|
|
| Minimum acceptable TrustScore; below it the guard blocks or warns. |
|
| Verdicts that block or warn. |
|
|
|
|
| Enforce-mode behavior when the guard cannot answer. |
|
| 0 means free tier only. |
|
| Token safety screen; needs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Token verdicts that block. |
|
| Deployer verdicts, deep only. |
|
| Enforce behavior when the safety guard is dead. |
|
| Enforce behavior on a degraded screen. |
|
| SSRF guard. Keep |
|
| Per-host circuit breaker. |
Environment variables read by both the server and the CLI:
Variable | Meaning |
| 0x-hex EVM private key. One of three signer sources. |
| Path to a mode-600 file holding a 0x-hex key. |
| Coinbase CDP server-wallet credentials (all three required together). |
| Optional named CDP EVM account. Defaults to a stable name. |
| Ledger, state, and config root. Default |
| Any value marks receipts |
|
|
| Optional |
Test mode
Set PAYFETCH_TEST_MODE to any value. Then every receipt is stamped test: true and
excluded from metrics, and Base mainnet quotes are refused so a self-test can never
touch mainnet spend. Only Base Sepolia settles. Use it to run the end-to-end Base
Sepolia path before spending real USDC.
CLI
The payfetch CLI reads the same environment as the MCP server.
# Reset a host's auto-deny circuit breaker (an operator action, not a tool).
npx @forum-labs/payfetch clear-autodeny api.example.com
# Print today's spend status as JSON.
npx @forum-labs/payfetch status
# Verify the ledger tamper-evidence sidecar (exits non-zero on any integrity gap).
npx @forum-labs/payfetch verify
# Report a paid outcome for a receipt (opt-in, off by default). Prints the exact
# wallet-signed payload, asks for confirmation, then submits. Never an MCP tool, so
# the agent can neither file nor suppress a report. Use --yes to skip the prompt.
npx @forum-labs/payfetch report <receiptId>status builds the engine and takes the single-writer lock. If the MCP server is
already running, use the spend_status tool instead, or stop the server first.
Manual .mcpb install
Directory submission is not offered for payment connectors, so payfetch is packaged for manual install. Build the bundle:
npm run build:mcpb # produces dist-mcpb/payfetch.mcpbThis runs tsc, then esbuild-bundles the built server entry and its runtime
dependencies into a single self-contained ESM file, and packs it with the mcpb tool.
The result is a small .mcpb zip holding manifest.json alongside the bundled
server. No node_modules is shipped, so Claude Desktop installs it without running
npm install. In Claude Desktop, go to Settings, Extensions, Install from file,
choose the .mcpb, then fill in exactly one signer option. The bundling logic is in
mcpb/build.mjs and the manifest is mcpb/manifest.json.
From source
npm install # dev dependencies, including tsx for the from-source flow
npm run typecheck # tsc --noEmit
npm test # vitest, hermetic, no network
npm run build # emit dist/, the compiled JS the package shipsLicense
MIT. See LICENSE. Copyright (c) 2026 Forum Labs.
Available Tools
5 toolsapprove_pendingB
List or resolve payments waiting for human approval (queue mode). Approving grants a one-time re-run permission for that exact payment. It only resolves payments already queued for approval; it cannot change spending policy — no payfetch tool can widen operator-owned limits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| approvalId | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that approving grants one-time re-run permission and that it cannot change policy. Missing details on deny action behavior, return values, and side effects, but adequate for core function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded with main purpose, no redundant information. Efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, action types, and a key behavioral constraint. Missing details on deny action, return format, and parameter validation, but functional overall.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage). The description implies action enum values and the role of approvalId for approve/deny, but does not explicitly define each parameter or their requirements. Insufficient compensation for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists or resolves pending payments in queue mode, with specific verb 'list or resolve' and resource 'payments waiting for human approval'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on approval workflow, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from each sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies it only resolves payments already queued for approval and cannot change spending policy, giving clear context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_receiptsA
Query the local payment receipt ledger (audit trail). Filter by time, host, or outcome. Spending policy is operator-owned config; no tool can widen it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| outcome | No | ||
| sinceTs | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates a read operation but lacks details on side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and no extraneous information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple query tool, it provides adequate context about filtering. However, it lacks output schema and details about response format or pagination, leaving some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning for 3 of 4 parameters (sinceTs, host, outcome) by linking them to filters. The 'limit' parameter is not described, but its schema includes default and bounds. Some value added, but not fully compensating.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool queries the local payment receipt ledger, a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings by noting spending policy constraints, indicating no sibling tool can widen it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies filters (time, host, outcome) and implies usage for obtaining audit trail information. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
paid_fetchA
Fetch a URL, automatically paying if it requires payment (HTTP 402, x402 protocol) — within the operator's spending policy. Free URLs are fetched normally at no cost. Use payment_quote first if you only want to know the price. Payments above the operator's approval threshold will ask the human for confirmation. Spending policy is operator-owned config; no tool can widen it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| chain | No | ||
| dryRun | No | ||
| method | No | GET | |
| headers | No | ||
| maxAmountUsd | No | Tightens the per-call cap for this one call. Can only LOWER the limit, never raise it. | |
| responseMode | No | inline | |
| tokenAddress | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It discloses automatic payment behavior, operator threshold checks, and that free URLs cost nothing. Does not cover failure behavior or rate limits, but adequately covers key behaviors.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds essential information about function, usage guidance, and policy implications.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, yet description does not mention return values. With 9 parameters, the description only covers payment-related semantics. Adequate for core behavior but missing parameter details and output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 11% (only maxAmountUsd has a description). The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the payment concept. Fails to explain url, method, headers, body, chain, dryRun, responseMode, tokenAddress.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool fetches a URL and automatically pays if required, distinguishing it from siblings like payment_quote. It uses specific verbs and resources ('fetch a URL', 'paying if required').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear context: mentions when to use payment_quote first as an alternative, and explains the spending policy and approval threshold. Lacks explicit exclusions for other sibling tools, but gives solid guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
payment_quoteA
Check what a paid URL costs and whether the current spending policy would allow paying it, WITHOUT paying. Returns the price, payment terms, trust-check results, and the policy decision. Spending policy is operator-owned config; no tool can widen it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| chain | No | ||
| method | No | GET | |
| headers | No | ||
| tokenAddress | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool does not pay (non-destructive) and that spending policy is operator-owned and not widen-able. Adds crucial behavioral context beyond schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences: first states core action with important disclaimer (WITHOUT paying), second enumerates return data, third adds policy context. Front-loaded, no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Description adequately covers main purpose and return data but lacks details on parameters, error handling, and output format. No output schema provided, so description is helpful but not complete for all 6 parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only implicitly explains 'url' via context; parameters body, chain, method, headers, tokenAddress are not described. Description adds minimal value for parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the tool checks cost and policy allowance for a paid URL without actually paying. It specifies verb (check), resource (paid URL cost, policy decision), and distinguishes from siblings like paid_fetch (actual fetch) and spend_status (status).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for pre-payment checks but does not explicitly state when to use over siblings or provide exclusions. No mention of alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
spend_statusA
Show today's agent spending: totals, remaining budgets overall and per host, active holds, and recent payments. Spending policy is operator-owned config; no tool can widen it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool shows information (totals, budgets, holds, payments) and notes that spending policy is operator-owned and cannot be widened by any tool. This adequately informs about its read-only nature and constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence efficiently lists what the tool shows, and the second adds a key policy constraint. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although there is no output schema, the description outlines the scope of returned information (totals, budgets, holds, payments) sufficiently for a simple status tool. Given the context of sibling tools and no parameters, the description is complete enough for the agent to understand its use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to add parameter meaning since none exist; baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it shows today's agent spending, including totals, remaining budgets (overall and per host), active holds, and recent payments. It distinguishes itself from siblings like approve_pending and list_receipts by being a read-only overview tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for viewing spending status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or when not to use it. It provides context about the spending policy but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
5 tool updates
v1.0.1- First observed
approve_pending - First observed
list_receipts - First observed
paid_fetch - First observed
payment_quote - First observed
spend_status
TDQS
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: approving pending payments, listing receipts, fetching with payment, checking prices, and viewing spending status. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names use descriptive verbs followed by nouns in snake_case (e.g., approve_pending, list_receipts), with consistent naming patterns throughout.
5 tools is an ideal count for this server's purpose, covering the essential operations without unnecessary bloat.
Covers quoting, fetching, approving, auditing, and status checking. Minor gap: lack of a tool to cancel pending approvals or modify payments, but these might be intentionally excluded as operator-only actions.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
AI agent spending controls. Set limits, blocklists, and caps. Approve transactions from your phone.
External audit for your agents. Spend control for agent wallets. You keep the keys.
Non-custodial payment drafts/pay links for BTC, USDC, USDT, EURC. Never holds keys.
Agent payments, API key vaulting, and governed mandates. Agents spend within user-defined limits.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables AI agents to manage USDC wallets on Solana, allowing them to send payments, create invoices, and access paid APIs within human-defined spending limits. It uses threshold signatures to provide agents with financial autonomy while ensuring secure oversight and transaction approval.36286 npm3Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceA budget-bound x402 payment wallet for AI agents: it autonomously pays HTTP 402 payment-gated URLs across every major chain (EVM, Solana, and many non-EVM families). Self-custodial and backendless, your key, your RPC, with spend caps enforced before any on-chain send.89MIT

Almega MCPofficial
AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA wallet and guardrail for AI agents, enabling spending limits, payment approvals, and real-time ledger tracking via memory or Stripe backends.MIT- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceNon-custodial payment engine for AI agents supporting BTC, ETH, USDT, USDC, XRP, XMR, and ZEC. Exposes wallet, invoice, and payment tools over MCP with per-agent spend limits, plus x402 pay-per-call support.22 npmBusiness Source 1.1