Measured x402 ecosystem data, facilitator reliability, and live endpoint checks.
Full paid due-diligence audit of an x402 merchant: live probe, price-drift detection between advertised and actual challenge price, settlement history, unique buyer count, and on-chain verification that USDC actually reaches the payTo address. Returns PASS/CAUTION/AVOID with evidence. Costs $0.01 USDC via x402 — returns payment instructions if called without payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute https URL of the x402 resource to audit. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, costs $0.01 USDC via x402, and that calling without payment returns payment instructions. It also states it performs a live probe and returns PASS/CAUTION/AVOID with evidence. While it doesn't detail every side effect (e.g., network requests to the target) or auth, it transparently surfaces the key cost and payment behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is dense but every clause earns its place: it lists specific audit components, states the return type, and communicates cost/payment fallback. It is not as minimal as possible but remains focused and readable without fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description reasonably explains what happens (audit checks), what comes back (PASS/CAUTION/AVOID with evidence), and the payment flow. It doesn't cover timing or failure modes, but for a single-URL audit tool, the core context is present.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers the only parameter fully: 'Absolute https URL of the x402 resource to audit' is a clear description. The tool description adds context that the URL is a merchant's endpoint, but no additional param semantics beyond the schema. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly names the tool's action ('Full paid due-diligence audit' of an x402 merchant) and enumerates specific checks: live probe, price-drift detection, settlement history, unique buyer count, and on-chain verification. This differentiates it from sibling x402_check_endpoint by emphasizing a comprehensive audit rather than a basic endpoint check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool — when a thorough, paid audit is needed — and warns that it costs $0.01 USDC, suggesting it is a heavier operation than simpler alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, leaving the choice between this and x402_check_endpoint to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check whether an x402 endpoint is alive and emits a valid HTTP 402 payment challenge, before you pay it. Free liveness check. Returns reachability, status code and whether a valid challenge was found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Absolute https URL of the x402 resource to check. |
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. It states the operation is free, describes what it returns ('reachability, status code and whether a valid challenge was found'), and implies a network request to the endpoint. It does not detail potential side effects, but as a read-only liveness check, this is adequately transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three concise sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the key attribute 'Free liveness check', and finally the return values. Every sentence contributes necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, that it is free, and what it returns. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without needing additional details about expected inputs or outputs.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing 'url' as 'Absolute https URL of the x402 resource to check.' The tool description adds only the synonym 'x402 endpoint' and does not introduce additional semantics such as formatting nuances or edge-case behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check', the resource 'x402 endpoint', and the specific condition being verified: 'alive and emits a valid HTTP 402 payment challenge'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402_audit_merchant or x402_market_stats, which address different concerns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'before you pay it' provides a clear when-to-use context, indicating this tool is a preliminary verification step prior to payment. It also notes the check is free, which signals a low-cost pre-payment action. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, though sibling tools serve clearly different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Which x402 facilitators actually settle payments, measured by probing each with a real signed EIP-3009 payload. Tells you which are keyless, which need API keys, which are testnet-only and which are unreachable. Free. Use before choosing a facilitator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral transparency. It discloses the probing method with real signed EIP-3009 payloads, states that the tool is free, and describes the classification outcomes. It does not mention potential side effects or failure modes, but is honest about its active probing nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two punchy sentences that front-load the core purpose and method, then add actionable context about cost and use timing. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is surprisingly complete: it states what it does, how it does it, what result categories to expect, and when to use it. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide whether to call it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it compensates by describing what the tool measures and returns.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: determining which x402 facilitators actually settle payments. It specifies the method (probing with a real signed EIP-3009 payload) and the distinct output categories (keyless, API-key, testnet-only, unreachable), making it easy to distinguish from sibling merchant- and gas-focused tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Use before choosing a facilitator,' giving a clear when-to-use directive. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention specific alternatives, but the facilitator-focused scope is enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Current gas price and estimated simple-transfer cost for an EVM chain. Free preview route. Supports base, polygon, arbitrum, optimism, ethereum.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chain | No | Which chain to query. Defaults to base. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It does reveal that the route is free and that the data is 'current', which is useful context, but it omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, and output units. Still, the key free-preview trait is disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It puts the core purpose first, then the free-preview note, then the chain list, making it highly scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough to select the chain and understand the high-level return values. It could clarify units of the gas price or transfer cost, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully documents the only parameter 'chain' with an enum and a default. The description's list of supported chains merely repeats the enum, adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource ('Current gas price and estimated simple-transfer cost') and the supported chains, making the tool's intent unmistakable. It is clearly differentiated from sibling tools like x402_audit_merchant or x402_check_endpoint, which target different concerns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Free preview route' implies a lightweight, no-cost use case, and the chain list gives some context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like x402_market_stats, and it offers no exclusions or 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.
Get measured statistics about the x402 ecosystem economy: total 30-day revenue across sampled resources, revenue concentration, revenue at a given rank, price distribution and payer concentration. Free. Use this to decide whether building or buying on x402 is worth it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosure. It transparently states the tool is 'Free' and uses 'Get measured statistics' to signal a read-only operation, with 'sampled resources' noting coverage limitations. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but these are less critical for a zero-parameter public stats call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two efficient sentences: the first fronts the main purpose and enumerates the data content, the second adds the standalone 'Free' fact and a concrete decision use case. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description names the key returned statistics (revenue, concentration, distribution, payer concentration) and gives a reason to call it. It does not describe exact output formatting or data freshness, but for a zero-input market-stats endpoint this is largely sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered vacuously. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description's list of statistics provides useful context even though no parameter details are needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('measured statistics about the x402 ecosystem economy'), then enumerates exact output dimensions: 30-day revenue, revenue concentration, revenue at rank, price distribution, payer concentration. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like x402_gas_price or x402_verified_merchants.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear use case: 'Use this to decide whether building or buying on x402 is worth it.' It also notes the tool is 'Free,' which helps an agent choose it over a paid alternative. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops 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 x402 merchants that have been VERIFIED to accept payment — each one actually paid with real USDC on Base, with the settlement transaction hash. This is different from a liveness probe: public censuses only check whether a 402 is emitted, not whether paying works. Use this to find endpoints that will actually serve you. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses useful behavior: verification means a real USDC payment on Base with a settlement transaction hash, not just a 402 emission. It also notes the tool is free, but it does not describe response format, pagination, or freshness.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the core action and verification criterion. The liveness contrast, use-case sentence, and 'Free' signal each add distinct value without unnecessary length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter free list call, the description covers what is returned (verified merchants and settlement transaction hashes) and why to use it. It does not specify the exact output schema, but that is a minor gap given the simplicity of the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add beyond the schema. This matches the baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List') and resource ('x402 merchants that have been VERIFIED to accept payment'), and explicitly contrasts with liveness probes. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like x402_check_endpoint without opening anything else.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to find endpoints that will actually serve you.' It also states what it is not for — liveness checks that only verify whether a 402 is emitted — so the agent knows when to choose an alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
x402_audit_merchantx402_check_endpointx402_facilitator_guidex402_gas_pricex402_market_statsx402_verified_merchantsClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
We buy from x402 endpoints with real USDC and publish delivery outcomes. Check before you spend.
Ecosystem monitoring: service status and x402 activity metrics
Live x402 endpoint trust/diligence check before you pay it. $0.02/call via x402.
Which x402 service actually works: uptime, valid 402, and settlements proven on-chain.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of the x402 ecosystem: endpoint liveness, deep merchant audit, facilitator comparison, gas pricing, market analytics, and verified merchant listings. There is no real overlap between tools.
All tools share the x402_ prefix and snake_case, but only audit_merchant and check_endpoint follow a verb_noun pattern. The remaining tools are noun phrases like gas_price, market_stats, and verified_merchants, making the naming conventions mixed yet still readable.
Six tools is well-scoped for an ecosystem intelligence server. Each tool fills a distinct niche and none feel redundant or superfluous.
The tool set covers the entire discovery and research workflow for the x402 economy: checking endpoints, finding verified merchants, auditing merchant trustworthiness, choosing facilitators, estimating gas costs, and assessing market viability. No obvious dead ends or critical gaps.