Skip to main content
Glama

get_x402_mcp_adapter

Fetches the auto-generated MCP manifest for x402-agent-pay.com, mapping facilitator endpoints to MCP tool descriptors with methods and params for agent platforms.

Instructions

[FREE] Fetch the auto-generated MCP manifest for x402-agent-pay.com (inv #4346): every facilitator endpoint (supported, verify, settle, report, handshake, heatmap, recent settlements, client scaffolds) mapped to MCP tool descriptors with methods and params, ready for agent platforms.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_x402_mcp_adapter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the manifest is auto-generated and free, and lists the endpoint categories included, but says nothing about the response format, whether the manifest can be stale, or any access or rate constraints.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the free tag, verb, and resource, followed by a parenthetical inventory of contents. The 'inv #4346' reference is noise, but overall there is little wasted wording.

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?

With no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the manifest's contents (supported, verify, settle, report, handshake, heatmap, settlements, scaffolds). That is close to sufficient for a zero-argument read tool, though response shape details remain implicit.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the empty schema confirms it. The description correctly implies a no-argument, unconditional fetch, leaving no parameter ambiguity to resolve.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('auto-generated MCP manifest for x402-agent-pay.com') and enumerates the endpoint families covered. An agent can tell it produces MCP tool descriptors rather than live data, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_x402_scaffold or get_x402_market_heatmap.

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 '[FREE]' tag and 'ready for agent platforms' phrase imply the use case (discovering the x402 endpoint surface as callable tools), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many x402/sibling tools.

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