Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RouteX402

RouteX402

by msurfx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

routex402-mcp

MCP server for Routex402 — verified payment reputation for AI agents on Solana. Drop into Claude Desktop, Cursor, VS Code, or any MCP-compatible client, and you can ask the model to check a seller before paying it.

Status: Solana devnet only. See routex402.xyz.

Install (Claude Desktop)

Add this to ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS) or %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json (Windows):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "routex402": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "routex402-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Restart Claude Desktop. The tools check_agent_reputation and list_top_agents appear in the tool picker.

Related MCP server: token-rugcheck

Try it

Ask Claude:

"Should I pay seller CiYKR8EYEJvJ6sGJNwYmKWSFdCBC3PsZSMYQao6aHk6J? Use the strict policy."

Claude calls check_agent_reputation and returns the score, vetting checks, and a proceed / do_not_pay recommendation.

Tools

check_agent_reputation(seller, policy?)

Returns a full agent report with score, tier, confidence, five vetting checks (track record, success rate, buyer independence, volume consistency, recency), and a policy decision. Read-only.

list_top_agents(limit?)

Returns sellers ranked by reputation, highest first.

Environment

  • ROUTEX402_BASE_URL — override the API endpoint (default: https://route402-seller.onrender.com).

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
check_agent_reputationA

Use BEFORE paying an AI agent or Solana seller. Looks up Routex402 verified payment reputation (devnet) and returns score, tier, confidence, 5 vetting checks, and a proceed / do_not_pay recommendation. Read-only; cannot move funds.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyNoTrust policy (default: standard)
sellerYesSeller profile pubkey OR payout wallet (base58)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description takes on the safety burden and does so explicitly: 'Read-only; cannot move funds' and the 'devnet' qualifier warn the agent it is a safe lookup on test data. It stops short of covering error behavior, rate limits, or what happens with an unknown seller.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the temporal trigger 'Use BEFORE paying' and closing with the safety guarantee. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (score, tier, confidence, 5 vetting checks, proceed/do_not_pay). Combined with the documented parameters and stated safety profile, an agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description adds no meaning for the 'policy' enum (standard/strict/off) — the one place where a sentence of explanation would genuinely help — and only loosely gestures at 'seller' via the prose.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('looks up Routex402 verified payment reputation') and names the target ('AI agent or Solana seller'), plus enumerates the returned artifacts. The per-seller lookup is implicitly distinguishable from list_top_agents, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Provides a clear, actionable trigger: 'Use BEFORE paying an AI agent or Solana seller.' No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g., versus list_top_agents for discovery/browsing), which keeps it short of a 5.

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

list_top_agentsA

Use when the user wants to find a trustworthy seller. Returns top Routex402 sellers ranked by reputation, with tier and confidence. Read-only.

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax agents to return (1-20, default 5)

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does state 'Read-only' and discloses the reputation/tier/confidence basis of the output, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or whether the result set is paginated or exhaustive.

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?

Three short sentences, leading with the usage condition and following with the return characteristics and safety note. Nothing is redundant, though the output characteristics could be woven into one tighter clause.

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?

A one-parameter list tool with no output schema needs to explain what comes back, and the description does name the ranking plus tier and confidence, while also flagging read-only behavior. Only the relationship to the sibling reputation tool is left unaddressed.

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 sole 'limit' parameter already documents its range and default, so the description adds no parameter meaning of its own. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Returns top Routex402 sellers ranked by reputation') and states the ranking signal, so an agent can tell it is a discovery/list tool rather than a single-agent lookup. It stops short of naming check_agent_reputation to draw the contrast explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear triggering condition ('Use when the user wants to find a trustworthy seller'), which is more than most definitions offer. However, it never says when not to use it or points to check_agent_reputation for evaluating a specific seller, so the routing decision is only partly covered.

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.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedcheck_agent_reputation
    • First observedlist_top_agents
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one performs a targeted lookup for a specific agent, while the other returns a ranked discovery list. An agent can easily choose between checking a known seller and browsing top sellers.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_agent_reputation and list_top_agents. The verbs and object nouns are predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

Two tools is thin for a reputation/discovery server, even if both are useful. It covers the two headline workflows but leaves little room for filtering, detail lookup, or supporting operations.

Completeness3/5

The core workflows of checking a known agent and listing top agents are covered, but the surface lacks search/filtering, detailed agent profiles or history, and any mechanism for submitting or updating reputation data. These are notable gaps for a reputation-oriented server.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • token-rugcheck

    AetherCore-Dev
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    MCP server for real-time Solana token risk analysis. Cross-references RugCheck.xyz, DexScreener, and GoPlus Security to generate three-layer reports: machine verdict → LLM analysis → raw on-chain evidence. Live on Solana mainnet with USDC micropayments ($0.02/audit). Give any AI agent the ability to check if a token is safe before trading.
    2
    MIT
  • acuris-agent-guard

    acuris-agent-guardofficial

    Acuris-GmbH
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    MCP server that verifies storefront merchants before AI agents make payments, checking if the merchant is a real legal entity bound to the domain, and returning a PROCEED, ABORT, or REVIEW decision to prevent payment to clones or fraudulent stores.
    MIT

  • trust-mcp

    Schmoll86
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server for AI agent trust verification, enabling agents to verify identities, check trust scores, and build reputation across multiple blockchain and web platforms.
    12
    15 npm
    1
    MIT