Skip to main content
Glama

Solana Enterprise Payment Gateway

High-Throughput HTTP 402 Payment Channel Middleware

Language / runtime note. The Maven build targets Java 21 bytecode (<java.version>21</java.version>), the Spring Boot 3.4 baseline. Container images build and run on Eclipse Temurin JDK 25 (eclipse-temurin:25-jdk / 25-jre-alpine). Both are stated explicitly because the host toolchain is JDK 25 while the source level remains Java 21.

An institutional-grade, zero-Web3-SDK middleware that meters HTTP APIs with the x402 protocol and RFC 9110 §15.5.3 402 Payment Required semantics. It validates Ed25519-signed, off-chain payment vouchers in-memory in under 5ms on the request hot path, persists every verification to an append-only PostgreSQL audit ledger, and sweeps cumulative channel balances on-chain in batched settlement transactions — all without any Node.js sidecar, Python bridge, or generic Web3 Java wrapper.

AI Agent Integration (Model Context Protocol)

Autonomous AI agents can screen Solana addresses and settle compliance micro-payments through our published Model Context Protocol (MCP) server. The server is a zero-dependency x402 compliance tool: it speaks the RFC 9110 402 Payment Required challenge-and-response protocol natively, signs Ed25519 channel vouchers in-memory (Node.js built-in crypto, no Web3 SDK), and negotiates settlement on every call.

Direct Execution

npx -y @msantagiulianab/x402-mcp-server

Configuration

The server reads two environment variables:

Variable

Value

Purpose

X402_GATEWAY_URL

https://msb-solana-enterprise-payment-gateway.duckdns.org

Gateway root URL

X402_CHANNEL_ID

chan_smoke_test_001

x402 payment channel id

Claude Desktop

Add an entry to claude_desktop_config.json.

macOS / Linux

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "solana-x402-compliance": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@msantagiulianab/x402-mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "X402_GATEWAY_URL": "https://msb-solana-enterprise-payment-gateway.duckdns.org",
        "X402_CHANNEL_ID": "chan_smoke_test_001"
      }
    }
  }
}

Windows

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "solana-x402-compliance": {
      "command": "cmd",
      "args": ["/c", "npx", "-y", "@msantagiulianab/x402-mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "X402_GATEWAY_URL": "https://msb-solana-enterprise-payment-gateway.duckdns.org",
        "X402_CHANNEL_ID": "chan_smoke_test_001"
      }
    }
  }
}

VS Code Cline

Add the server to cline_mcp_settings.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "solana-x402-compliance": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@msantagiulianab/x402-mcp-server"],
      "env": {
        "X402_GATEWAY_URL": "https://msb-solana-enterprise-payment-gateway.duckdns.org",
        "X402_CHANNEL_ID": "chan_smoke_test_001"
      }
    }
  }
}

Verified Dual Compliance Screening Outcomes

The screen_solana_address tool returns one of two verified outcomes:

Counterparty

Risk score

Verdict

Flags

Clear counterparty

0

CLEAR_TO_TRANSACT

none

Malicious / sanctioned counterparty

100

BLOCKED

OFAC_SANCTIONED / drainer detection (EXPLOIT_DRAINER)

Related MCP server: solana-forensics

Model Context Protocol (MCP) Server

This repository contains the official open-source MCP server implementation located at /agent-tools/mcp-server.


Table of Contents

  1. Executive Architecture & Core Thesis

  2. System Components

  3. Complete Protocol Sequence Diagram

  4. Cryptographic & Voucher Wire Specification

  5. HTTP Wire Headers & JSON Schemas

  6. Database Schema & State Transitions

  7. Quickstart & Verification

  8. Configuration Parameters

  9. Production Extension & Customization Guide

  10. Project Layout

  11. Testing

  12. Security & Compliance Posture

1. Executive Architecture & Core Thesis

Problem

Base-layer blockchain latency and per-transaction fees are fundamentally incompatible with high-throughput, micro-metered HTTP APIs. Use cases such as:

  • AI inference billed per token or per call,

  • RWA (real-world asset) valuation feeds billed per oracle read,

  • Compliance / sanctions screening billed per address,

…each issue millions of sub-cent requests per day. Settling every call directly on Solana would impose block-confirmation latency (hundreds of milliseconds to seconds) and a per-transaction fee that dwarfs the price of a single metered call. The economics do not close, and the user experience collapses.

Solution

The gateway decouples the metering decision from the settlement transaction using the x402 HTTP challenge-and-response protocol:

  1. Monotonic unidirectional off-chain state channels. A client presents a signed voucher whose cumulativeAmountAtomic only ever increases for a channel. The gateway trusts the voucher only insofar as (a) it is signed by the channel owner, (b) its nonce is strictly monotonic, and (c) its cumulative spend does not exceed the verified on-chain escrow deposit.

  2. RFC 9110 402 Payment Required filter. A Spring OncePerRequestFilter issues a PAYMENT-REQUIRED challenge to unauthenticated callers and accepts a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE voucher on retry, attaching a PAYMENT-RESPONSE receipt on success.

  3. < 5ms hot path. Voucher verification is pure in-memory Ed25519 crypto plus a short-TTL cache of the escrow balance. No synchronous Solana RPC call is ever made on the HTTP request path.

  4. Batched on-chain settlement. An administrative endpoint sweeps a channel's highest-nonce verified cumulative amount to the treasury in a single signed transaction, recorded atomically in the audit ledger.

The result is deterministic, single-digit-millisecond payment gating with fail-closed rejection, a complete audit trail, and on-chain finality only where it matters: at settlement.

Zero-Dependency Philosophy

The gateway deliberately avoids all generic Web3 SDK baggage:

Concern

Implementation

Dependency

Ed25519 signing/verification

Ed25519Signer (BouncyCastle)

bcprov-jdk18on only

Base58 codec

Hand-rolled Base58 (no alphabet mistakes)

zero

compact-u16 (shortvec)

Hand-rolled CompactU16

zero

Canonical account sorting

SolanaWireTransactionBuilder

zero

Transaction serialization & signing

SolanaWireTransactionBuilder + SolanaKeypairService

zero

Solana RPC

JDK java.net.http.HttpClient + Jackson JSON-RPC 2.0

zero

There is no @solana/web3.js, no solana4j/p4j, and no runtime invocation of an external process. Wire transactions are serialized byte-by-byte from first principles, and the JVM-native crypto stack is the only third-party cryptographic primitive.

2. System Components

The gateway follows a strict layered separation:

HTTP Request
   │
   ▼
X402PaymentFilter (OncePerRequestFilter)          ── 402 challenge / 403 reject / pass-through
   │
   ├──▶ ChannelVoucherVerifier (service)          ── in-memory nonce watermark + Ed25519 + ceiling check
   │        └──▶ EscrowBalanceProvider            ── SolanaEscrowVerifier (short-TTL cache)
   │
   ├──▶ PaymentAuditService (service)             ── append VERIFIED record
   │        └──▶ PaymentAuditRepository (JPA)     ── append-only PostgreSQL ledger
   │
   └──▶ downstream @RestController               ── compliance screening, (your) metered APIs

Settlement (admin, off hot path):
   POST /api/v1/settlement/channels/{id}/sweep
   │
   ▼
ChannelSettlementService (service)
   ├──▶ SolanaRpcClient                          ── getLatestBlockhash / sendTransaction (JSON-RPC 2.0)
   ├──▶ SolanaWireTransactionBuilder             ── serialize + sign (in-process)
   └──▶ PaymentAuditRepository                   ── VERIFIED → SETTLED (markSettled)

Component

Package

Responsibility

X402PaymentFilter

filter

402 challenge, header decode, 403 fail-closed, receipt attach

ChannelVoucherVerifier

service

in-memory anti-replay + signature + escrow-ceiling checks

SolanaEscrowVerifier

service

on-chain escrow balance with short-TTL cache (EscrowBalanceProvider)

PaymentAuditService

service

append-only audit persistence

ChannelSettlementService

service

on-chain sweep + VERIFIED → SETTLED transition

PaymentAuditRepository

repository

read/insert only (no update/delete declared)

SolanaRpcClient

rpc

fail-closed JSON-RPC 2.0 (getAccountInfo, getLatestBlockhash, sendTransaction)

SolanaWireTransactionBuilder

serialization

legacy tx wire format, account sorting, SOL/SPL instructions

Ed25519SignatureVerifier

serialization

BouncyCastle Ed25519 verify

SolanaKeypairService

serialization

keypair derivation + in-process signing

Base58, CompactU16, SolanaAddressValidator

serialization

zero-dependency codecs & validation

3. Complete Protocol Sequence Diagram

The full x402 challenge-and-response lifecycle across the client, the gateway (filter / verifier / ledger / settlement), and the Solana RPC node:

 Client                Gateway (Spring Boot)                                Solana RPC        PostgreSQL
   │                           │                                              │                 │
   │ 1. POST /api/v1/...       │                                              │                 │
   │    (no payment headers)   │                                              │                 │
   │ ─────────────────────────▶│                                              │                 │
   │                           │ X402PaymentFilter.shouldNotFilter()          │                 │
   │                           │  · /api/v1/*  → protected                    │                 │
   │                           │  · /api/v1/settlement/* → skip (admin)       │                 │
   │                           │                                              │                 │
   │ 2. HTTP 402 + PAYMENT-REQUIRED (Base64 challenge JSON)                  │                 │
   │ ◀─────────────────────────│                                              │                 │
   │                           │                                              │                 │
   │ 3. POST /api/v1/...       │                                              │                 │
   │    + PAYMENT-SIGNATURE    │                                              │                 │
   │    (Base64 voucher JSON)  │                                              │                 │
   │ ─────────────────────────▶│                                              │                 │
   │                           │ 4. Base64-decode → PaymentVoucher record     │                 │
   │                           │ 5. ChannelVoucherVerifier.verifyVoucher()    │                 │
   │                           │    a. Base58 payer key valid?                │                 │
   │                           │    b. nonce > lastSeenNonce[channel]?        │                 │
   │                           │    c. cumulative ≤ escrow ceiling?           │                 │
   │                           │       (short-TTL cache; NO RPC on hot path)  │                 │
   │                           │    d. Ed25519 verify(canonical bytes)        │                 │
   │                           │    ── any failure → 403 Forbidden (fail-     │                 │
   │                           │       closed) and audit log                  │                 │
   │                           │ 6. PaymentAuditService.recordVerifiedVoucher │                 │
   │                           │ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────▶  append
   │                           │                                              │              VERIFIED row
   │ 7. HTTP 200 + PAYMENT-RESPONSE (Base64 receipt JSON)                    │                 │
   │ ◀─────────────────────────│                                              │                 │
   │                           │                                              │                 │
   │  [later] POST /api/v1/settlement/channels/{id}/sweep                    │                 │
   │ ─────────────────────────▶│                                              │                 │
   │                           │ 8. ChannelSettlementService.settleChannel()  │                 │
   │                           │    a. load latest VERIFIED record            │                 │
   │                           │    b. getLatestBlockhash() ──────────────────▶│                 │
   │                           │ ◀─────────────────────────────── blockhash   │                 │
   │                           │    c. SolanaWireTransactionBuilder            │                 │
   │                           │       .serializeAndSign() (in-process)       │                 │
   │                           │    d. sendTransaction(wireTx) ───────────────▶│                 │
   │                           │ ◀─────────────────────────────── txSignature │                 │
   │                           │ 9. record.markSettled(txSignature)           │                 │
   │                           │ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────▶  SETTLED row
   │ 10. HTTP 200 { txSignature, settledAmountAtomic, ... }                  │                 │
   │ ◀─────────────────────────│                                              │                 │

Key invariant: steps 4–6 never touch the network. The only RPC interactions are the off-path settlement sweep (step 8), keeping the request hot path deterministic and sub-5ms.

4. Cryptographic & Voucher Wire Specification

Canonical byte layout

A voucher is signed over a deterministic, domain-separated byte string (see PaymentVoucher#getCanonicalPayload()):

"X402_CHANNEL_V1:" || u16le(channelId.length) || channelId || i64le(cumulativeAmountAtomic) || i64le(nonce)

Offset

Size (bytes)

Field

Encoding

0

16

domain tag

ASCII X402_CHANNEL_V1:

16

2

channelId.length

unsigned 16-bit little-endian (putShort)

18

N

channelId

raw UTF-8 bytes

18 + N

8

cumulativeAmountAtomic

signed 64-bit little-endian (putLong)

26 + N

8

nonce

signed 64-bit little-endian (putLong)

The domain tag provides cross-protocol disambiguation (a signature over these bytes can never be replayed against another message scheme). Both integer fields are little-endian to match the JVM ByteOrder.LITTLE_ENDIAN buffer and the JavaScript reference signer in smoke-test.sh, which mirrors the layout exactly (writeUInt16LE + writeBigInt64LE).

Ed25519 over Base58 public keys

  • The payer public key is a Base58-encoded 32-byte Ed25519 public key.

  • The signature is a Base58-encoded 64-byte Ed25519 signature.

  • Verification is org.bouncycastle.crypto.signers.Ed25519Signer initialized in verify mode with Ed25519PublicKeyParameters(pubkeyBytes, 0).

  • SolanaAddressValidator.isValid() rejects anything that does not decode to exactly 32 bytes — a structural guard that runs before the crypto check.

Monotonic nonce guarantees & anti-replay mechanics

  1. Strict monotonicity (in-memory). ChannelVoucherVerifier maintains a ConcurrentHashMap<String, Long> of the highest nonce seen per channel. Any voucher whose nonce <= lastSeenNonce[channel] is rejected before any cryptographic work, returning 403 Forbidden.

  2. Constraint-level replay defense (database). The audit ledger enforces a UNIQUE (channel_id, nonce) index (uk_payment_audit_ledger_channel_nonce), so a replayed nonce can never be persisted even if the in-memory watermark is bypassed (e.g. after a restart with an empty map).

  3. Monotonic cumulative amount. Because cumulativeAmountAtomic only grows across a channel's voucher sequence, the gateway never needs per-call payment state — it trusts the latest cumulative value as the running spend ceiling.

  4. Fail-closed ceiling. If the cumulative amount exceeds the verified escrow deposit ceiling (EscrowBalanceProvider), the voucher is rejected. A missing, depleted, or unreadable escrow account yields a ceiling of 0, never a positive balance.

Voucher JSON payload

{
  "channelId": "chan_demo_solana_001",
  "payerPubkey": "7xKXtg2CW87d97TXJSDpbD5jBkheTqA83TZRuJosgAsU",
  "cumulativeAmountAtomic": 5000,
  "nonce": 10,
  "signature": "<Base58 64-byte Ed25519 signature>"
}

5. HTTP Wire Headers & JSON Schemas

All x402 headers are Base64-encoded JSON. The gateway accepts and emits both a canonical and an X--prefixed alias for forward compatibility.

Direction

Canonical header

Alias

Meaning

Server → Client

PAYMENT-REQUIRED

X-PAYMENT-REQUIRED

402 challenge (PaymentRequired)

Client → Server

PAYMENT-SIGNATURE

X-PAYMENT

signed voucher (PaymentVoucher)

Server → Client

PAYMENT-RESPONSE

X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE

settlement receipt (PaymentSettlementReceipt)

Challenge (PAYMENT-REQUIRED)

{
  "x402Version": 2,
  "scheme": "channel",
  "network": "solana:devnet",
  "escrowAddress": "7xKXtg2CW87d97TXJSDpbD5jBkheTqA83TZRuJosgAsU",
  "asset": "USDC",
  "priceAtomicUnits": 5000,
  "unit": "per-call",
  "message": "Payment required via Solana payment channel or gasless voucher"
}

Receipt (PAYMENT-RESPONSE)

{
  "channelId": "chan_demo_solana_001",
  "settledAmountAtomic": 5000,
  "nonce": 10,
  "timestamp": 1750000000000,
  "status": "VERIFIED"
}

Example curl flows

# 0) Machine-readable x402 discovery document (unauthenticated)
curl -i http://localhost:8080/.well-known/x402.json
# → HTTP/1.1 200 { "x402Version": 2, "name": "...", "services": [ ... ] }

# 1) Unauthenticated request → 402 challenge
curl -i -X POST http://localhost:8080/api/v1/compliance/screen-address \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -d '{"address":"4Nd1mBQtrMJVYVfKf2PJy9NZGibCcTRxpETqdrBHu19Y"}'
# → HTTP/1.1 402, PAYMENT-REQUIRED: <Base64 challenge JSON>

# 2) Replay with a signed voucher header → 200 + receipt
curl -i -X POST http://localhost:8080/api/v1/compliance/screen-address \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -H "PAYMENT-SIGNATURE: <Base64 voucher JSON>" \
  -d '{"address":"4Nd1mBQtrMJVYVfKf2PJy9NZGibCcTRxpETqdrBHu19Y"}'
# → HTTP/1.1 200, PAYMENT-RESPONSE: <Base64 receipt JSON>

# 3) Administrative on-chain settlement sweep
curl -i -X POST http://localhost:8080/api/v1/settlement/channels/chan_smoke_test_001/sweep
# → HTTP/1.1 200 { "channelId": "...", "settledAmountAtomic": 5000, "txSignature": "...", ... }

6. Database Schema & State Transitions

The schema is owned exclusively by versioned Flyway migrations (src/main/resources/db/migration). Production runs with spring.jpa.hibernate.ddl-auto: validate, so Hibernate never emits DDL — it only verifies that the JPA entity maps onto the migrated schema.

payment_audit_ledger (V1 → V2)

Column

Type

Constraints

Notes

id

bigserial

PK

monotonically increasing append order

channel_id

varchar(64)

NOT NULL, indexed

x402 channel identifier

payer_pubkey

varchar(44)

NOT NULL, indexed

Base58 32-byte payer public key

cumulative_amount_atomic

bigint

NOT NULL

running spend ceiling in atomic units

nonce

bigint

NOT NULL, UNIQUE w/ channel

anti-replay monotonic counter

signature

varchar(88)

NOT NULL

Base58 Ed25519 voucher signature

status

varchar(32)

NOT NULL

VERIFIED or SETTLED

tx_signature

varchar(88)

NULL (V2)

on-chain sweep transaction signature

created_at

timestamptz

NOT NULL DEFAULT NOW()

immutable append timestamp

Indexes

Index

Columns

Purpose

pk_payment_audit_ledger

id

primary key

uk_payment_audit_ledger_channel_nonce

(channel_id, nonce) UNIQUE

constraint-level replay defense

idx_payment_audit_ledger_payer_pubkey

payer_pubkey

payer lookups

idx_payment_audit_ledger_channel_id

channel_id

channel audit reads

  • V1 — V1__init_payment_audit_ledger.sql creates the table, the unique anti-replay index, and the two lookup indexes.

  • V2 — V2__add_settlement_tx_signature.sql adds the nullable tx_signature column so previously-appended VERIFIED rows remain valid until swept.

Append-only contract

The table is append-only by contract: the application never issues UPDATE or DELETE against it, the PaymentAuditRepository declares no mutation methods beyond save (insert), and the JPA entity exposes no mutators other than the single legal state transition below.

Channel state lifecycle

        voucher verified & appended
   ┌──────────────────────────────────▶  VERIFIED
   │                                        │
   │                                        │  ChannelSettlementService.settleChannel()
   │                                        │  → record.markSettled(txSignature)
   │                                        ▼
   └────────────────────────────────────  SETTLED

PaymentAuditRecord.markSettled(txSignature) enforces the only legal transition:

  • VERIFIED → SETTLED — allowed only once a non-blank txSignature is supplied.

  • Any other transition (e.g. SETTLED → SETTLED, or null → SETTLED) throws IllegalStateException.

The ChannelSettlementService sweeps the highest-nonce VERIFIED record for a channel (findTopByChannelIdOrderByNonceDesc) — because cumulative amounts are monotonic, the latest record already represents the full outstanding balance, and settling it atomically closes the channel.

7. Quickstart & Verification

Prerequisites

  • Docker + Docker Compose (for the full stack)

  • JDK 25 (host toolchain; the project compiles to Java 21 bytecode)

  • Maven Wrapper (./mvnw) — no system Maven required

  • For the smoke test only: curl, node (≥ 12), and optionally jq

1. Launch the full stack

docker compose up -d --build

This builds the multi-stage Dockerfile (Temurin 25 builder → Temurin 25 JRE runtime, non-root appuser) and starts:

Service

Image

Port

Role

solana-payment-gateway-db

postgres:16-alpine

5432

append-only audit ledger

solana-payment-gateway-app

built from ./Dockerfile

8080

Spring Boot gateway

The application waits for the database healthcheck, then applies the Flyway migrations (V1, V2) on startup.

2. Automated end-to-end smoke test

./smoke-test.sh

The script exercises the complete protocol in five stages and exits non-zero on any failure:

Stage

Action

Assertion

1 — Challenge

POST /api/v1/compliance/screen-address without payment headers

HTTP 402, PAYMENT-REQUIRED header present, priceAtomicUnits == 5000

2 — Voucher

Replay with a deterministically signed PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header

HTTP 200, PAYMENT-RESPONSE present, verdict CLEAR_TO_TRANSACT

3 — Ledger (VERIFIED)

Query payment_audit_ledger in PostgreSQL

≥ 1 VERIFIED row with cumulative_amount_atomic == 5000

4 — Sweep

POST /api/v1/settlement/channels/{id}/sweep

HTTP 200, non-empty txSignature, settledAmountAtomic == 5000

5 — Ledger (SETTLED)

Re-query the ledger

≥ 1 SETTLED row with a non-null, non-blank tx_signature

Fresh stack only. The voucher uses the fixed nonce 1 and the ledger is append-only, so a second run against the same app process fails closed (403 / already-settled). Reset cleanly with docker compose down -v && docker compose up -d --build.

3. Local development & testing

./mvnw clean test

Runs the full 47-test JUnit 5 suite against an in-memory H2 database in PostgreSQL mode (src/test/resources/application-test.yml) with Flyway applying the same V1/V2 migrations. RPC mock mode is enabled so the suite is deterministic and never dials an external Solana node.

./mvnw spring-boot:run          # run locally (expects localhost PostgreSQL)

8. Configuration Parameters

All values live in src/main/resources/application.yml. Spring Boot's relaxed binding maps uppercase/underscore environment variables onto these keys; explicit ${ENV:default} placeholders are listed where they exist.

Property

Default

Environment override

Purpose

server.port

8080

SERVER_PORT

HTTP listen port

spring.datasource.url

jdbc:postgresql://localhost:5432/solana_payment_gateway

SPRING_DATASOURCE_URL

JDBC URL

spring.datasource.username

postgres

SPRING_DATASOURCE_USERNAME

DB user

spring.datasource.password

postgres_secure_password

SPRING_DATASOURCE_PASSWORD

DB password

spring.datasource.driver-class-name

org.postgresql.Driver

—

JDBC driver

spring.datasource.hikari.maximum-pool-size

10

DB_POOL_MAX_SIZE

HikariCP pool ceiling

spring.jpa.hibernate.ddl-auto

validate

—

reject schema drift (Flyway owns DDL)

spring.jpa.open-in-view

false

—

disable OSIV anti-pattern

spring.flyway.enabled

true

—

enable migrations

spring.flyway.locations

classpath:db/migration

—

migration search path

spring.flyway.baseline-on-migrate

true

—

baseline non-empty schemas

spring.flyway.baseline-version

1

—

baseline version

x402.network

solana:devnet

—

challenge network field

x402.escrow-pubkey

7xKXtg2CW87d97TXJSDpbD5jBkheTqA83TZRuJosgAsU

—

settlement escrow address

x402.asset

USDC

—

challenge asset field

x402.price-atomic-units

5000

—

per-call price (atomic units)

x402.unit

per-call

—

challenge unit field

solana.rpc.url

https://api.devnet.solana.com

SOLANA_RPC_URL

JSON-RPC 2.0 endpoint

solana.rpc.mock-mode

false

SOLANA_RPC_MOCK_MODE

offline deterministic RPC (tests/local)

solana.rpc.cache-ttl-millis

5000

—

escrow balance cache TTL

solana.gateway.treasury-pubkey

4Nd1mBQtrMJVYVfKf2PJy9NZGibCcTRxpETqdrBHu19Y

SOLANA_GATEWAY_TREASURY_PUBKEY

settlement sweep destination

solana.gateway.mock-private-key

4wBqpZM9xaSheZzJSMawUKKwhdpChKbZ5eu5ky4Vigw

SOLANA_GATEWAY_MOCK_PRIVATE_KEY

deterministic sweep signer (mock only)

Security. solana.gateway.mock-private-key is a deterministic mock seed used only for offline/local settlement. In production, replace it with a secret-manager-backed key (e.g. KMS/HSM or an environment-injected secret) and never commit a funded key.

9. Production Extension & Customization Guide

This gateway is a template middleware, not a fixed product. The sections below show how to adapt it to any metered API domain — new endpoints, dynamic pricing, token settlement, and custom escrow programs.

(a) Securing New Endpoints

The X402PaymentFilter protects everything under /api/v1/ except the administrative settlement paths. To place a new metered resource behind x402, simply map a controller under /api/v1/:

@RestController
@RequestMapping("/api/v1/ai")
public class InferenceController {
    @PostMapping("/infer")
    public Map<String, Object> infer(@RequestBody InferenceRequest request) {
        return inferenceEngine.run(request);
    }
}

@RestController
@RequestMapping("/api/v1/rwa")
public class OracleController {
    @GetMapping("/oracle/{asset}")
    public Map<String, Object> valuation(@PathVariable String asset) {
        return valuationFeed.price(asset);
    }
}

Both /api/v1/ai/infer and /api/v1/rwa/oracle are now automatically gated: a request without a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header receives 402, and a valid voucher is required to reach the controller.

To tune which paths are protected or excluded, override X402PaymentFilter#shouldNotFilter(HttpServletRequest):

@Override
protected boolean shouldNotFilter(HttpServletRequest request) {
    String path = request.getRequestURI();
    if (path.startsWith("/api/v1/settlement/")) return true;   // admin, unpaid
    if (path.startsWith("/api/v1/public/"))    return true;      // free endpoints
    return !path.startsWith("/api/v1/");
}

(b) Custom Pricing & Metering

By default the filter charges a single static price (x402.price-atomic-units: 5000) for every call. For request-shape or user-tier pricing, replace the @Value-injected unitPriceAtomic with a pricing service:

@Service
public class RequestPricingService {
    public long priceFor(HttpServletRequest request) {
        return switch (request.getRequestURI()) {
            case "/api/v1/ai/infer"      -> 5000;   // 0.005 USDC per inference
            case "/api/v1/rwa/oracle"    -> 10000;  // 0.010 USDC per oracle read
            default                      -> 5000;   // fallback per-call price
        };
    }
}

Then inject RequestPricingService into X402PaymentFilter and compute the per-request price at the top of doFilterInternal, passing it into both the 402 challenge and the verifier call:

long price = pricingService.priceFor(request);
boolean authorized = voucherVerifier.verifyVoucher(voucher, price);

For tiered billing (free tier, standard, enterprise), look up the payer's tier from voucher.payerPubkey() (or an internal customer registry) and multiply the base price accordingly. The voucher itself remains monotonic and cumulative — the client simply signs cumulativeAmountAtomic += price on each call.

(c) Token Adaptation (SOL → SPL / Token-2022)

SolanaWireTransactionBuilder ships with two instruction factories. Native SOL settlement uses the System program (0x02 discriminator):

byte[] source = payer.getPublicKeyBytes();
byte[] treasury = Base58.decode(treasuryPubkey);
SolanaInstruction transfer = SolanaWireTransactionBuilder.systemTransfer(source, treasury, amount);

To settle in SPL Tokens (e.g. USDC) instead of native SOL, switch the instruction in ChannelSettlementService.settleChannel() to the legacy SPL Token transfer (0x03 discriminator, program id TokenkegQfeZyiNwAJbNbGKPFXCWuBvf9Ss623VQ5DA):

// USDC is a 6-decimal SPL token, so scale the raw amount by 10^6.
long amountRaw = amountAtomic * 1_000_000L;
SolanaInstruction transfer = SolanaWireTransactionBuilder.tokenTransfer(
        sourceTokenAccount,      // gateway's associated token account
        treasuryTokenAccount,     // treasury's associated token account
        authority,                // token authority (signer)
        amountRaw);

Notes:

  • Associated Token Accounts (ATAs) must be resolved (or derived via getAssociatedTokenAddress) before settling; the builder itself only serializes the instruction.

  • Token-2022 uses the program id TokenzQdBNbLqP5VEhdkAS6EPFLC1PHnBqCXEpPxuEb and, for mint/transfer-fee tokens, the transferChecked instruction (which carries the mint + decimals). Add a new factory alongside tokenTransfer rather than reusing the legacy 0x03 discriminator.

  • Update x402.asset / x402.price-atomic-units and the challenge to advertise the correct asset and decimal-scaled price.

(d) Custom Escrow Verification

Escrow balance resolution is behind the EscrowBalanceProvider interface, so the verifier never depends on a concrete address or account layout:

public interface EscrowBalanceProvider {
    long getVerifiedDepositCeiling(String channelId);
}

The stock SolanaEscrowVerifier resolves a single settlement escrow (x402.escrow-pubkey) and caches the lamport balance for a short TTL. To wire a custom smart contract, PDA program, or per-channel escrow, either:

  1. Override address resolution. Replace SolanaEscrowVerifier#resolveEscrowAddress with PDA derivation (e.g. findProgramAddress(seeds, programId)) so each channel resolves to its own escrow account; or

  2. Provide your own bean. Implement EscrowBalanceProvider, parse the account's data field for a custom balance layout (not just lamports), and expose it as the primary @Component. The filter/verifier chain is unchanged.

The critical contract — fail closed — must be preserved: a missing, depleted, or unreadable escrow must yield a ceiling of 0, never a positive balance.

@Component
public class CustomProgramEscrowVerifier implements EscrowBalanceProvider {
    private final SolanaRpcClient rpc;

    public CustomProgramEscrowVerifier(SolanaRpcClient rpc) { this.rpc = rpc; }

    @Override
    public long getVerifiedDepositCeiling(String channelId) {
        String escrow = deriveEscrowPda(channelId);          // program-owned PDA
        return rpc.getAccountInfo(escrow)
                .map(AccountInfoResponse::value)
                .map(AccountInfoValue::data)
                .map(data -> decodeDepositCeiling(data))      // custom layout
                .orElse(0L);                                  // fail closed
    }
}

10. Project Layout

.
├── pom.xml                                  # Java 21 target, Spring Boot 3.4.3, BouncyCastle 1.78.1
├── Dockerfile                               # multi-stage: Temurin 25 builder → 25-jre-alpine runtime
├── docker-compose.yml                       # PostgreSQL 16 + gateway app
├── smoke-test.sh                            # 5-stage end-to-end x402 verification
├── mvnw / mvnw.cmd / .mvn/wrapper/          # Maven wrapper (no system Maven needed)
└── src
    ├── main
    │   ├── java/com/msb/solana/gateway
    │   │   ├── SolanaPaymentGatewayApplication.java
    │   │   ├── compliance/        AddressRiskEvaluator, ThreatIntelligenceRegistry, ScreeningVerdict, ScreeningResult, ScreeningFlag
    │   │   ├── config/            SolanaRpcConfig.java (JDK HttpClient bean)
    │   │   ├── controller/        ComplianceScreeningController, SettlementController, X402DiscoveryController
    │   │   ├── entity/            PaymentAuditRecord, PaymentAuditStatus
    │   │   ├── filter/            X402PaymentFilter.java
    │   │   ├── model/             PaymentRequiredChallenge, PaymentVoucher,
    │   │   │                      PaymentSettlementReceipt, SettlementResult, X402DiscoveryResponse
    │   │   ├── repository/        PaymentAuditRepository.java
    │   │   ├── rpc/               SolanaRpcClient.java (+ model/* JSON-RPC DTOs)
    │   │   ├── serialization/     Base58, CompactU16, AccountMeta, SolanaInstruction,
    │   │   │                      SolanaKeypair, SolanaKeypairService,
    │   │   │                      SolanaWireTransactionBuilder, Ed25519SignatureVerifier,
    │   │   │                      SolanaAddressValidator
    │   │   └── service/           ChannelVoucherVerifier, ChannelSettlementService,
    │   │                          PaymentAuditService, SolanaEscrowVerifier,
    │   │                          EscrowBalanceProvider
    │   └── resources/
    │       ├── application.yml
    │       └── db/migration/      V1__init_payment_audit_ledger.sql,
    │                              V2__add_settlement_tx_signature.sql
    └── test
        ├── java/...              11 test classes (47 tests)
        └── resources/application-test.yml   # H2 (PostgreSQL mode) + mock RPC

11. Testing

The suite runs 47 tests across 11 classes with JUnit 5, Mockito, and MockMvc:

Test class

Focus

AddressRiskEvaluatorTest

OFAC / drainer blocklist, CLEAR_TO_TRANSACT / BLOCKED, malformed address → 400

X402DiscoveryControllerTest

GET /.well-known/x402.json discovery document

X402ProtocolIntegrationTest

MockMvc: 402 challenge, valid voucher → 200, replay → 403, tampered signature → 403

SettlementControllerIntegrationTest

sweep endpoint → VERIFIED → SETTLED + tx_signature

ChannelSettlementServiceTest

sweep transaction build, blockhash, sign, broadcast

ChannelVoucherVerifier (via integration)

nonce watermark, ceiling, signature checks

SolanaEscrowVerifierTest

mock-mode ceiling, cache TTL, fail-closed empty balance

PaymentAuditServiceTest

append-only record creation

PaymentAuditRepositoryTest

unique (channel_id, nonce) constraint, lookups

SolanaRpcClientTest

JSON-RPC request/response, mock signatures, fail-closed

CryptoPrimitivesTest

Base58, compact-u16, Ed25519 round-trips

SolanaWireTransactionBuilderTest

account sorting, header, discriminator, wire bytes

The MockMvc integration tests verify the five mandated protocol outcomes:

  1. Unauthenticated request → 402 with a correct Base64 PAYMENT-REQUIRED header.

  2. Valid voucher → 200 + downstream payload + PAYMENT-RESPONSE header.

  3. Tampered signature → 403 Forbidden (fail-closed).

  4. Replayed/stale nonce → 403 Forbidden with audit logging.

  5. Insufficient channel balance → fail-closed rejection.

The project targets >95% coverage for the cryptographic (serialization) and filter components.

12. Security & Compliance Posture

  • Fail-closed by default. Missing header → 402; tampered signature, replayed nonce, or exceeded ceiling → 403. Malformed header → 400. No code path grants access on an unreadable RPC node or escrow.

  • Append-only audit trail. Every verification is persisted exactly once; the schema and repository forbid mutation, and the UNIQUE(channel_id, nonce) index makes replay impossible at the database layer.

  • No private keys persisted or logged. SolanaKeypair holds the signing key in-memory only; the public-key accessor returns a defensive copy. Logs record channel IDs, nonces, amounts, and tx signatures — never key material.

  • Non-root container. The runtime image runs as an unprivileged appuser with -XX:+ExitOnOutOfMemoryError and container-aware heap sizing.

  • Schema drift rejection. hibernate.ddl-auto: validate ensures the JPA model can never silently diverge from the versioned Flyway schema.

  • Deterministic mock mode. solana.rpc.mock-mode: true (tests and the local compose stack) produces stable, replayable signatures without funded accounts; production sets it to false to exercise live devnet/mainnet settlement.

Available Tools

4 tools
generate_compliance_reportA

Generate an immutable audit summary report for a Solana wallet address or transaction signature, checked against sanctions and threat intelligence logs.

Unlike screen_solana_address (a live, paid network screening), this tool is deterministic and side-effect-free: it performs no network call, settles no payment, and returns a stable audit record with a reproducible reportId. It references the current session's in-memory screening ledger: if the identifier has not been live-screened this session, it returns complianceStatus 'UNSCREENED' with a null riskScore and an empty checkedLists array.

Returns a JSON audit payload: { identifier, complianceStatus ('PASSED' | 'FLAGGED' | 'UNSCREENED'), riskScore (number or null), flags (string[]), sanctionsMatch (boolean), checkedLists ([] when unscreened, otherwise ['OFAC','EU_SANCTIONS','CHAIN_REPUTATION']), lastEvaluated, evaluationTimestamp, timestamp (ISO-8601), reportId ('rpt_' + 32 hex chars, SHA-256 derived) }. A blank or malformed identifier is rejected with a validation error.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identifierYesSolana identifier to report on: either a Base58 wallet address (32-byte public key) or a Base58 transaction signature (64 bytes). Example address: '4Nd1mBQtrMJVYVfKf2PJy9NZGibCcTRxpETqdrBHu19Y'. Example signature: '3zKcze3Q9DDRui2YCMeTPsBs3mxymxMN3oCvNDVKkrbgtZsR6CVfrLaMPd1kVHjoiAYEqTLNYxAzeABmdBMWSWhm'.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It states there is no network call, no payment settled, a reproducible reportId, dependence on the session's in-memory screening ledger, exact behavior for unscreened identifiers, and validation errors for blank or malformed input. This is exceptionally transparent for a tool with no annotation support.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: main purpose, differentiation from the sibling, behavioral guarantees, session dependency, unscreened behavior, and a concrete return payload shape. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides structured detail. There is no filler or tautology.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It fully defines the returned JSON fields, possible complianceStatus values, riskScore behavior, flags, checkedLists contents, and reportId format. It also covers error conditions and the prerequisite screening state, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents the identifier parameter with examples. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains that the identifier is checked against the current session's screening ledger and that an unscreened identifier yields a specific complianceStatus. This extra semantic dependency is valuable and not present in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Generate an immutable audit summary report for a Solana wallet address or transaction signature, checked against sanctions and threat intelligence logs.' It clearly distinguishes itself from screen_solana_address by contrasting deterministic, side-effect-free reporting with live, paid network screening. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Unlike screen_solana_address (a live, paid network screening), this tool is deterministic and side-effect-free.' It also explains the precondition for meaningful results: the identifier must have been live-screened this session, otherwise it returns 'UNSCREENED'. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance beyond any structured fields.

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

get_channel_statusA

Retrieve the current operational status, limits, and settlement state of an x402 payment channel, identified by its channel_id.

Use this as the first step of the channel lifecycle before screening an address or verifying a payment: confirm the channel is ACTIVE and has capacity so a downstream x402 micro-payment can settle.

Returns a JSON object: { channelId, status ('ACTIVE'), currency ('USDC'), network ('solana-devnet'), capacity ('10000.00'), lastSettlementBlock }. A blank or malformed channel_id is rejected with a validation error.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channel_idYesx402 payment channel identifier (1-128 chars; alphanumeric plus '.', '-', '_'). Example: 'chan_smoke_test_001'.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return shape, including fields and example values, and mentions validation error behavior for blank or malformed channel_id. It does not explicitly state read-only semantics or auth/rate-limit behavior, but 'Retrieve' and the status-check context make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, usage context, and return shape are each covered in a single sentence with no filler. Every sentence contributes actionable 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 a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides the necessary return shape, usage context, and validation behavior. It is nearly complete, though it does not describe behavior for unknown channel IDs or non-ACTIVE statuses, and the literal-looking status ('ACTIVE') is slightly ambiguous.

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 schema already documents channel_id with format constraints and an example. The description adds little beyond saying the channel is 'identified by its channel_id,' so the 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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and names the exact resource ('x402 payment channel') and the aspects returned (operational status, limits, settlement state). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by positioning it as the first lifecycle step before screening or payment verification.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this as the first step of the channel lifecycle before screening an address or verifying a payment.' However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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

screen_solana_addressA

Screen a Solana wallet address in real time against sanctions and threat intelligence databases. This is the live, network-bound compliance check: it automatically negotiates and settles an x402 micro-payment, then returns the gateway's screening verdict, risk score, and any matching flags.

Use this when you need an authoritative, up-to-date screening decision for an address before transacting with it. For a deterministic, offline audit record instead, use generate_compliance_report; to validate a payment itself, use verify_x402_payment.

Returns a JSON object: { address, verdict ('CLEAR_TO_TRANSACT' | 'BLOCKED'), riskScore (0-100), flags[], sanctionsMatch (boolean), lastEvaluated, evaluationTimestamp }. On gateway or payment failure it returns isError with the underlying message.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesBase58-encoded Solana wallet address (32-byte public key, 32-44 characters). Example: '4Nd1mBQtrMJVYVfKf2PJy9NZGibCcTRxpETqdrBHu19Y'.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is live/network-bound, automatically negotiates and settles an x402 micro-payment (a side effect), returns a specific JSON structure, and handles failures by returning isError. This is comprehensive and non-contradictory.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then usage guidance, then return format, then error handling. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or repetition. It's appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

For a tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object with exact fields and possible values, and explains failure behavior. It also clarifies the tool's place among siblings, making it complete for an agent to 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the address parameter with format, length, and example. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('screen') with a clear resource ('Solana wallet address') and distinguishes it from siblings by naming the offline alternative (generate_compliance_report) and payment validation (verify_x402_payment). The agent can immediately know what this tool does and how it differs.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use this when you need an authoritative, up-to-date screening decision...' and provides alternatives with conditions ('For a deterministic, offline audit record instead, use generate_compliance_report; to validate a payment itself, use verify_x402_payment'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

verify_x402_paymentA

Verify cryptographic validity and on-chain settlement state of an x402 payment proof or transaction signature.

Use this to confirm that a payment proof is well-formed and whether it has been settled against a channel. Prefer screen_solana_address for sanctions/threat screening of an address; use this tool for payment proof validation.

Returns a JSON object: { status ('valid' | 'settled' | 'invalid'), payerPublicKey (Base58), amountAtomicUnits (number), amount ('0.005000'), currency ('USDC'), timestamp (ISO-8601) }. status semantics: 'valid' = proof well-formed but not yet settled (no channelId); 'settled' = proof valid and settled on the supplied channelId; 'invalid' = proof is not a valid Base58 Solana address or transaction signature.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelIdNoOptional x402 channel identifier (alphanumeric plus '.', '-', '_'). When supplied and valid, the proof is reported as 'settled'; omit it to report 'valid'. Example: 'chan_smoke_test_001'.
paymentProofYesx402 payment proof to verify: a Base58 Solana transaction signature (64 bytes) or wallet address (32 bytes). Example: '3zKcze3Q9DDRui2YCMeTPsBs3mxymxMN3oCvNDVKkrbgtZsR6CVfrLaMPd1kVHjoiAYEqTLNYxAzeABmdBMWSWhm'.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides a detailed return contract, including status semantics ('valid', 'settled', 'invalid') and explains how omitting or supplying channelId changes the outcome. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or disclose side effects, but the verify-oriented description and deterministic status rules provide substantial transparency.

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?

The description is well-organized into purpose, usage, and return/status semantics, with no filler. It is longer than minimal, but the length is justified because there is no output schema and the return contract must be spelled out. A small amount of redundancy exists between the opening summary and the status definitions, but it does not hurt clarity.

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, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, the returned JSON shape, and the meaning of each status. Minor gaps remain, such as explicit guidance on when to use get_channel_status instead and any error/rate-limit behavior, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how channelId affects the status result: supplying it yields 'settled', omitting it yields 'valid'. It also clarifies what makes a proof 'invalid' in terms of Base58 format, adding valuable parameter-level meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Verify cryptographic validity and on-chain settlement state of an x402 payment proof or transaction signature.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling screen_solana_address by noting that the screen tool is for sanctions/threat screening while this tool is for payment proof validation.

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?

The description clearly states when to use the tool: to confirm a payment proof is well-formed and whether it has settled against a channel. It also gives an explicit alternative by saying to prefer screen_solana_address for sanctions/threat screening. However, it does not address when to prefer get_channel_status or generate_compliance_report, leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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. 4 tool updatesv1.0.13
    • Changedgenerate_compliance_report1 field changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / identifier / description
        Added value: +"Solana identifier to report on: either a Base58 wallet address (32-byte public key) or a Base58 transaction signature (64 bytes). Example address: '4Nd1mBQtrMJVYVfKf2PJy9NZGibCcTRxpETqdrBHu19Y'. Example signature: '3zKcze3Q9DDRui2YCMeTPsBs3mxymxMN3oCvNDVKkrbgtZsR6CVfrLaMPd1kVHjoiAYEqTLNYxAzeABmdBMWSWhm'."
    • Changedget_channel_status1 field changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / channel_id / description
        Added value: +"x402 payment channel identifier (1-128 chars; alphanumeric plus '.', '-', '_'). Example: 'chan_smoke_test_001'."
    • Changedscreen_solana_address1 field changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / address / description
        Added value: +"Base58-encoded Solana wallet address (32-byte public key, 32-44 characters). Example: '4Nd1mBQtrMJVYVfKf2PJy9NZGibCcTRxpETqdrBHu19Y'."
    • Changedverify_x402_payment2 fields changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / channelId / description
        Added value: +"Optional x402 channel identifier (alphanumeric plus '.', '-', '_'). When supplied and valid, the proof is reported as 'settled'; omit it to report 'valid'. Example: 'chan_smoke_test_001'."
      • addedInput schema / properties / paymentProof / description
        Added value: +"x402 payment proof to verify: a Base58 Solana transaction signature (64 bytes) or wallet address (32 bytes). Example: '3zKcze3Q9DDRui2YCMeTPsBs3mxymxMN3oCvNDVKkrbgtZsR6CVfrLaMPd1kVHjoiAYEqTLNYxAzeABmdBMWSWhm'."
  2. 1 tool updatev1.0.10
    • Addedverify_x402_payment
  3. 2 tool updatesv1.0.5
    • Addedgenerate_compliance_report
    • Addedget_channel_status

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: payment proof validation, live address screening, channel status retrieval, and offline audit report generation. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other to prevent confusion, especially between screen_solana_address and generate_compliance_report.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: verify_, screen_, get_, generate_. The verbs clearly map to each tool's purpose and the resource names are descriptive.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a compliance-focused x402 server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core compliance workflow: checking channel capacity, screening an address, verifying a payment, and generating an audit report. The only minor gap is lack of explicit channel creation or management tools, but that appears outside the server's compliance scope.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • F
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    On-chain investigation and analysis tools for Solana blockchain, enabling detection of wash trading, funding source tracing, holder concentration analysis, and MEV/bundle activity identification.
    4
    3
    -
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Keyless, pay-per-call compliance & regulated-data tools for AI agents: OFAC wallet + sanctions/PEP + KYB screening, SEC filings, FRED economics, FDA recalls, federal awards, and continuous monitoring (watch a wallet/company/brand for status changes). USDC via x402 on Base/Solana, no API key, no signup.
    -