Skip to main content
Glama
jaysperspective

thebuyside-x402-agent

by jaysperspective
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.5.1

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct function: discovery of paid APIs, execution of paid requests, and wallet status inspection. There is no functional overlap.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools use a consistent 'pay.<action>' pattern with underscores for multi-word verbs (pay.wallet_status). Perfectly predictable and uniform.

    Tool Count4/5

    With 3 tools, the set is at the lower bound of well-scoped. It covers core operations but feels slightly thin for a payment gateway agent.

    Completeness3/5

    Missing tools for managing the registry (add/update/delete APIs) and wallet configuration (set spend limits, allowlists). These are notable gaps for a full lifecycle.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 2 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    It is implied to be a read-only operation. With no annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or side effects.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    Two sentences, front-loaded with return data, succinct usage advice. No wasted words.

    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?

    Given no output schema, the description lists the three key return items. It is fairly complete for a simple status read, but could specify format details (e.g., address format).

    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?

    No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. Baseline 4 per instructions. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed.

    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 clearly states it returns specific payment context data (wallet address, spend total, limits) and uses the verb 'Return'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools pay.discover and pay.fetch.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The tool says 'Use this to surface payment context to the user', which gives a usage context. But it does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it queries a local curated registry and external indexes when federation is enabled, explains the 'source' field (verified vs. unverified), and the 'protocol' field (x402 or mpp). No destructive actions are implied.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: core function, external indexes, source field, and protocol field. No redundant or extraneous 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?

    Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, federation behavior, and key response fields. It is slightly lacking details on error handling or pagination, but overall provides sufficient context for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

    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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description adds no significant new meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., 'free-text' repeats the schema description for query, and limit defaults are restated). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool searches a registry of paid APIs by free-text query, using the verb 'Search' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'pay.fetch' and 'pay.wallet_status' by focusing on discovery versus retrieval or status checking.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., pay.fetch). The description does not include when-not-to-use scenarios or suggest alternative tools, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains the payment process (signs USDC payment, subject to spend caps and allowlist) and what the LLM sees. However, it does not disclose error handling for payment failures or rate limits.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    Four sentences, each earning its place: main purpose, 402 handling, restrictions, and LLM visibility. No filler, front-loaded with the core action.

    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?

    Given no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the return value ('response body') and hides wallet details. Missing error scenarios and redirect/timeout handling, but comprehensive for a payment tool.

    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 coverage is 100%, and description adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The description's parameter descriptions ('Full URL of the paid endpoint', 'HTTP method (default GET)') are redundant with schema descriptions.

    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?

    The description clearly states it makes HTTP requests to URLs that may require payment, handles 402 responses with x402 or MPP protocols, and returns the response body. This distinguishes it from siblings like pay.discover (for discovering paid endpoints) and pay.wallet_status (for wallet state).

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies use for URLs requiring payment but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings. It lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives like pay.discover for listing endpoints.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

thebuyside-x402-agent MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

thebuyside-x402-agent MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jaysperspective/thebuyside-x402-agent'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server