Skip to main content
Glama
romudille-bit

AgentPay x402 — Economic-intelligence layer for AI Agents

by romudille-bit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

verified_route

Find a trustworthy x402 tool for an agent's need and budget by sweeping the marketplace, collapsing sybil listings, ranking by unique payers, and returning one vetted payable recommendation.

Instructions

Paid buyer-side trust oracle: 'I need X, budget $Y — which x402 tool is real?' Sweeps the WHOLE x402 marketplace across many queries (a single search shows only a slice), collapses sybil/factory clusters (one wallet stamping many fake-distinct listings → one entry), ranks the genuinely-used survivors by real unique-payer usage, and returns ONE vetted recommendation with a ready-to-pay x402 challenge. The credit-bureau check an agent cannot do itself in one query — pay $0.01 to avoid paying a scam or a dead stub.

Use when: An agent is about to pay an unknown x402 tool and wants the real, used, non-sybil one under budget — not just the cheapest. Not for: you already know which AgentPay tool you need — call it directly; you only want a free preview of the marketplace ranking — the MCP's keyless verified_route preview. This call settles $0.01 on-chain. Returns: recommendation (with ready_to_pay), survivors[], catalog{scanned, real_providers, sybil_collapsed, biggest_factory}, vetting summary Example response: {"need": "dex pair liquidity", "chain": null, "budget_usd": "1", "recommendation": {"name": "Otto AI", "url": "https://otto.example/dex", "price_usd": "0.001", "network": "eip155:8453", "pay_to": "0x0e84ddedaae6a7", "payers30d": 200, "calls30d": 3246, "quality": 3851, "flags": [], "ready_to_pay": {"url": "https://otto.example/dex", "network": "eip155:8453", "price_usd": "0.001", "accepts": {"scheme": "exact", "network": "eip155:8453"}}}, "survivors": [], "catalog": {"scanned": 117, "after_vetting": 114, "real_providers": 41, "unique_wallets": 38, "sybil_collapsed": 73, "biggest_factory": {"pay_to": "0x2bb72231eed3", "listings": 72}}, "vetting": "swept 17 queries \u2192 117 listings \u2192 collapsed 73 sybil listings \u2192 41 real providers"}

Price: $0.01 USDC per call — settles on-chain from the wallet in STELLAR_SECRET_KEY (funded mainnet Stellar account required); not read-only. Live public data, no other API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needYesWhat the agent needs, e.g. 'dex pair liquidity', 'crypto prices'
chainNoOptional chain filter: 'base', 'arbitrum', 'arbitrum-stack'. Empty = all chains.
budget_usdNoMax USDC the agent will pay the downstream tool per call

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond annotations: settles $0.01 on-chain from STELLAR_SECRET_KEY, requires a funded mainnet Stellar account, is not read-only, uses live public data with no other API key, and explains the sybil-collapse behavior and return shape. Annotations only cover safety hints, so this description carries the real behavioral load and does so richly.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the use-when/not-for routing, which is good structure. However, it is dense and includes a full example response JSON inline, which is longer than needed for a 3-param tool and slightly buries the essential routing under illustrative bulk.

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?

Covers pricing, auth/wallet requirements, sybil behavior, return fields, and an example response despite no output schema. For a paid, non-read-only, open-world tool, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 the baseline is 3. The description mentions need/budget and chain filtering contextually but adds no syntax or enumeration details beyond the schema (e.g., no examples of chain values beyond what the schema already lists).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific, unusual verb+resource: a paid buyer-side trust oracle that sweeps the x402 marketplace, collapses sybil clusters, and returns one vetted recommendation. The quoted user-intent framing ('I need X, budget $Y — which x402 tool is real?') makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like pre_trade_check or token_security.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections name the alternatives: call the known AgentPay tool directly, or use the free keyless verified_route preview. The condition that selects this tool (about to pay an unknown x402 tool and want the real, used, non-sybil one under budget) is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools