One-cent x402 and MCP readiness checks plus fixed-price marketplace launch packs.
Create a deterministic, read-only pre-action receipt from request, policy, and optional result evidence. Use before an agent posts, spends, lists, or writes so the decision can be audited; no external action is executed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | No | Decision object, e.g. allow/retry/review/block and reason. | |
| result | No | Optional result or dry-run summary to hash into evidence. | |
| request | Yes | Action metadata the agent is about to perform. | |
| nextStep | No | Optional guidance stored in the receipt. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| decision | Yes | |
| nextStep | No | |
| createdAt | Yes | |
| receiptId | Yes | |
| evidenceHash | Yes | |
| claimBoundary | Yes | |
| marketplacePositioning | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating the tool is 'deterministic' and that 'no external action is executed,' reinforcing and elaborating on the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, so no annotation_contradiction.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core function, then a usage instruction. Every word earns its place; 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?
With a rich output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and behavior sufficiently for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists.
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 has 100% coverage with each parameter already described. The description adds extra meaning by grouping them into 'request, policy, and optional result evidence,' showing how they relate to the receipt. It doesn't provide syntax details, but the schema already covers that, so this is above baseline.
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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Create a deterministic, read-only pre-action receipt' from specified inputs. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing determinism, read-only nature, and that no external action is executed, making it unique among the listed boundary/checking 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?
Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use before an agent posts, spends, lists, or writes so the decision can be audited.' It also clarifies the critical safety property: 'no external action is executed.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, 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.
GateCheck readiness: check whether an x402/agent-facing tool is ready for agent routing, marketplace listing, and paid-path monitoring, including public agent discovery surfaces (/llms.txt, /agents.txt, /.well-known/mcp.json, /mcp). Pass target plus optional tier, marketplace_url, expected_resources, and paid_path; deep/report tiers add unpaid 402 probing when paid_path is supplied. Tiers: quick $1, deep $5, report $10.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Readiness depth. quick=$1, deep=$5, report=$10. Defaults to quick. | |
| method | No | Safe unpaid probe method when paid_path is supplied. Defaults to GET. | |
| target | Yes | Target API/provider base URL to scan. | |
| expected | No | Optional expected x402 network/asset/price metadata for paid_path probes. | |
| paid_path | No | Optional specific paid endpoint to probe without payment for deep/report tiers. | |
| marketplace_url | No | Optional marketplace/listing URL to compare against public metadata. | |
| expected_resources | No | Optional expected resource count. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| scan | No | |
| tier | Yes | |
| ready | Yes | |
| score | Yes | |
| checks | Yes | |
| issues | Yes | |
| report | No | |
| target | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| priceUsd | Yes | |
| healthProbe | No | |
| recommendedFixes | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds that 'deep/report tiers add unpaid 402 probing' and lists the public discovery surfaces scanned, giving extra behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.
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?
Three sentences with no filler; the most important action and scope are in the first sentence, and costs/tier behavior are succinctly stated in the following sentences.
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 7 params and an output schema, the description covers purpose, tiers, key parameters, and probe behavior. It omits method/expected details but those are already in the schema; output schema exists so return values don't need description.
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 describes all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by grouping optional parameters, linking paid_path to deep/report tiers, and giving per-tier costs, which is semantic context beyond the schema.
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?
Description opens with 'GateCheck readiness' and states the tool 'check whether an x402/agent-facing tool is ready for agent routing, marketplace listing, and paid-path monitoring', naming concrete discovery surfaces like /llms.txt and /mcp. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scanners/probers by framing it as a readiness gate rather than a direct scan or probe.
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 tells the user to 'Pass target plus optional tier, marketplace_url, expected_resources, and paid_path' and defines three tiers with costs. It implies the deep/report tiers are needed when paid-path probing is desired, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like probe_x402_paid_path or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate a deterministic trust receipt from sanitized request/policy/result/payment summaries. Do not submit raw auth headers, cookies, API keys, private keys, payment signatures, payment response headers, customer prompts, customer documents, or payer-identifying evidence.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | No | Sanitized policy or decision summary to hash. | |
| result | No | Sanitized outcome/result summary to hash; omit customer data and secret-like values. | |
| payment | No | Optional sanitized payment summary or caller-provided hashes only; do not include raw payment signatures, raw payment response headers, private keys, API keys, cookies, payer-identifying evidence, or wallet secrets. | |
| request | Yes | Sanitized request/action summary to hash; omit raw prompts, documents, credentials, cookies, auth headers, signatures, and secrets. | |
| nextStep | No | Optional receipt next-step guidance. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| decision | Yes | |
| nextStep | No | |
| createdAt | Yes | |
| receiptId | Yes | |
| evidenceHash | Yes | |
| claimBoundary | Yes | |
| marketplacePositioning | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the critical trait 'deterministic' and emphasizes the need for sanitized inputs, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations; rather, it reinforces them.
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 sentences: the first is a crisp definition, the second is a focused list of forbidden inputs. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information is front-loaded.
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?
With an output schema present, detailed annotations, and a clear description, the tool is well-contextualized. The security constraints are thoroughly covered, and the purpose is unambiguous. A minor gap is the lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but the tool's unique role is still evident.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented. The tool description adds a global constraint about not submitting raw sensitive data, which applies across all parameters. However, it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline.
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 function: 'Generate a deterministic trust receipt from sanitized request/policy/result/payment summaries.' It uses a specific verb ('generate'), names the resource ('trust receipt'), and specifies the inputs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boundary_guard_check or probe_x402_paid_path, which serve different purposes.
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 usage by requiring 'sanitized' inputs and explicitly listing what must not be submitted (auth headers, cookies, API keys, etc.). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings or provide exclusions or alternative tool references. The 'Do not submit...' list is a strict input constraint but not a full usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Generate marketplace-safe launch assets for an x402/MCP seller: listing copy, buyer FAQ, checklist, approval packet, and claim boundaries. Pass target plus optional product_name, audience, primary_use_case, marketplace_url, and paid_path; service/premium tiers include readiness evidence. Tiers: single $9, service $29, premium $49.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tier | No | Launch pack depth. single=$9, service=$29, premium=$49. Defaults to single. | |
| method | No | Safe unpaid probe method when paid_path is supplied. Defaults to GET. | |
| target | Yes | Target API/provider base URL to package for launch. | |
| audience | No | Primary buyer/audience for listing copy. | |
| expected | No | Optional expected x402 network/asset/price metadata for paid_path probes. | |
| paid_path | No | Optional paid endpoint to validate via unpaid 402 challenge for service/premium packs. | |
| product_name | No | Buyer-facing product title. | |
| marketplace_url | No | Optional marketplace/listing URL to compare against public metadata. | |
| primary_use_case | No | Primary buyer outcome/use case. | |
| expected_resources | No | Optional expected resource count. | |
| desired_marketplaces | No | Optional marketplace names to include in launch planning. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tier | Yes | |
| report | No | |
| target | Yes | |
| product | Yes | |
| priceUsd | Yes | |
| readiness | No | |
| launchPack | Yes | |
| productName | Yes | |
| claimBoundary | No | |
| readinessScore | Yes | |
| readyForDistribution | No | |
| approvalRequiredBeforeDistribution | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds that outputs are 'marketplace-safe' and that service/premium tiers include 'readiness evidence,' which is meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradiction.
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 sentences front-load the primary action and output list, then input guidance, then tier pricing. Every clause carries information with no filler, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.
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 the 11-parameter schema with full descriptions and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, inputs, and tier differentiation. It doesn't detail every parameter, but that is appropriately delegated to the schema; the only minor gap is an explicit link to sibling validation tools.
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?
Schema has 100% parameter coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by highlighting key parameters (target, product_name, audience, primary_use_case, marketplace_url, paid_path) and linking them to tier behavior, helping the agent understand how parameters are used together.
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?
Description states a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'marketplace-safe launch assets' with an enumerated list of outputs (listing copy, buyer FAQ, checklist, approval packet, claim boundaries). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools that check, scan, or probe.
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?
Provides clear usage context: pass target plus optional parameters, and select a tier. It implies when to use (for sellers creating launch packs) and mentions tier-specific behavior, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Probe a public x402 paid endpoint without signing or paying, then parse the HTTP 402 challenge. Pass target plus optional expected network/asset/price to verify payment metadata and receive a deterministic health receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Probe mode for v1. Defaults to unpaid_402. | |
| method | No | Safe unpaid probe method. Defaults to GET. | |
| target | Yes | Specific paid endpoint URL to probe without payment. | |
| expected | No | Optional expected x402 metadata such as network, asset, and priceUsd. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| checks | Yes | |
| issues | Yes | |
| target | Yes | |
| healthy | Yes | |
| receipt | Yes | |
| observed | Yes | |
| recommendedFixes | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, establishing a safe, side-effect-free profile. The description adds useful context by stating it probes 'without signing or paying' and that it produces a 'deterministic health receipt,' which aligns with and enriches the annotation hints. No contradictions exist.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and target, and every clause adds relevant information. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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 the rich schema and annotations, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's function, safe read-only nature, and the purpose of the key optional parameter. It does not detail error handling or output structure, but an output schema exists and the tool's purpose is clear, so this is not a critical gap.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the 'expected' parameter is used 'to verify payment metadata' and mapping its sub-fields (network/asset/price) to that purpose. This goes slightly beyond the schema, though mode and method still rely on their enum descriptions.
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 uses the specific verb 'Probe' and clearly identifies the target resource ('public x402 paid endpoint') and the key outcomes ('parse the HTTP 402 challenge' and 'receive a deterministic health receipt'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_x402_resource by emphasizing the unpaid, no-signature probing approach.
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 states the primary use case: probing a paid endpoint without signing or paying, which clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools or state when not to use it, so there is no direct exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read-only scan of a public API/provider URL for x402, OpenAPI, pricing, and agent-discovery metadata. Pass url, and optionally marketplace_url plus expected_resources, to get a readiness score, issues, and fixes; no private endpoints are called.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Target API/provider base URL to scan. | |
| marketplace_url | No | Optional marketplace/listing URL to compare against public metadata. | |
| expected_resources | No | Optional expected resource count. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | |
| issues | Yes | |
| prices | No | |
| target | Yes | |
| nextSteps | Yes | |
| marketplacePositioning | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the explicit 'read-only' and 'no private endpoints are called' guarantees, reinforcing the safety profile, and mentions the output (readiness score, issues, fixes) which is useful behavior beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and safety guarantee, then parameter usage. Every word earns its place; no 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers actions, inputs, outputs, and safety. It doesn't need to explain return values since output schema handles that.
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?
Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description only restates that url is passed and marketplace_url and expected_resources are optional, adding no new semantic detail. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies, with no compensatory info.
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?
Description clearly states a read-only scan of a public API/provider URL for x402, OpenAPI, pricing, and agent-discovery metadata, distinguishing it from sibling tools by naming the resource type and the specific metadata categories. The verb 'scan' and the output (readiness score, issues, fixes) make the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 provides clear context for when to use it: for scanning a public API/provider URL, with optional marketplace and expected resources. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like probe_x402_paid_path or check_agent_tool_readiness, and does not mention exclusions or alternative selection criteria.
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.
boundary_guard_checkcheck_agent_tool_readinessgenerate_trust_receiptgenerate_x402_launch_packprobe_x402_paid_pathscan_x402_resourceClaiming 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!
Audit x402 buyer discovery free; publish signed provider profiles with MCP and Bazaar evidence.
MCP/x402 starter audit; payment-ready buyers call buy_now first.
x402 MCP get-paid path: USDC, spend caps, AUP, $49 kit. CAPTCHA/web-unlock for payment-ready agents.
Paid remote MCP for context budgets, progressive loading, schema slimming, and readiness.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some conceptual overlap: 'check_agent_tool_readiness' and 'scan_x402_resource' both evaluate readiness, while 'boundary_guard_check' and 'generate_trust_receipt' both produce receipts. Descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is low.
All names use snake_case, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (check_, generate_, probe_, scan_). 'boundary_guard_check' deviates by being a noun-noun compound, but it's the only outlier and remains readable.
With 6 tools, the count is well-scoped for an x402/MCP utility server. Each tool covers a distinct aspect (pre-action guard, readiness, receipts, launch pack, probing, scanning) without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers the core lifecycle of x402 validation and seller readiness: pre-action checks, readiness assessment, trust receipts, launch assets, and endpoint probing/scanning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to update or delete launch packs), but they are not critical to the server's purpose.