x402 Bazaar

encode_selector

Read-onlyIdempotent

Function signature → 4-byte selector — Computes the 4-byte selector for a function signature (e.g. transfer(address,uint256) → 0xa9059cbb). The inverse of the decoder — useful for agents building or matching calldata. Required input: signature. Priced $0.01 per call over x402 on Base; send a prepaid x-credit-token header for unlimited calls, or get 1 free call/day per tool. No wallet or API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`signature`	Yes	Function signature

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No	The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description.
`service`	No	The service id that answered.
`checkedAt`	No	ISO-8601 timestamp of when the underlying reads were taken.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / data / description

Previous value: -"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the service description above."New value: +"The result payload. Shape is service-specific; every field is documented in the tool description."

Changed1 schema field changedAug 31, 2026
- removedOutput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "data"
-]
```
AddedAug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds operational behavior beyond annotations: pricing per call, x402 payment on Base, prepaid x-credit-token header, free daily call, and no wallet/API key requirement. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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: it leads with the computation and example, then the inverse relationship and use case, then the access/cost details. Every sentence carries useful information, and the pricing/header details earn their place because they affect whether and how an agent calls the tool.

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, deterministic, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers what it does, how to call it, what input to provide, and the access requirements. Nothing necessary for a correct call is missing.

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 schema describes signature only as 'Function signature,' with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful format guidance with the canonical example transfer(address,uint256), which tells an agent the exact expected string shape. This goes beyond the schema's bare label without being verbose.

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 names a specific verb ('Computes'), a precise resource ('4-byte selector for a function signature'), and includes a concrete example (transfer(address,uint256) → 0xa9059cbb). It also distinguishes itself from the decoder side by calling itself 'the inverse of the decoder,' which separates it from decode_selector in the sibling list.

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 explicitly states when it is useful: 'for agents building or matching calldata.' It also frames itself as the inverse of the decoder, giving an agent a clear directional choice. It stops short of naming decode_selector directly or spelling out 'do not use this for decoding,' so it loses one point.

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

All x402 Bazaar tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Despite excellent per-tool descriptions, the set contains many near-overlapping tools: rug_score, batch_risk, pre_trade_gate, and deep_dd all assess token risk; wallet_portfolio, wallet_networth, and wallet_tokens all list balances; b20_safety, b20_gate, and b20_dossier overlap heavily; url_extract, web_extract, ai_extract, and url_to_json also blur boundaries. An agent would struggle to consistently pick the right tool without reading every description.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case verb_noun (token_price, rug_score, address_trust, file_convert, safe_to_send). Minor deviations: noun-only names like holders, basename, deep_dd, business_days, and new_tokens, plus the abbreviation deep_dd, slightly break the pattern.

Tool Count1/5

137 tools is far beyond the 50+ extreme-mismatch threshold. Even as a marketplace bazaar, this is an enormous, unwieldy surface where many tools overlap and each contributes only a sliver of unique value.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent purpose — a pay-per-call bazaar covering on-chain analysis, wallet intelligence, token due diligence, plus generic text/web/finance utilities — the surface is extensive and covers most read-only workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist (no historical price series, no swap execution, no true on-chain write actions), but the set is not severely incomplete for its stated niche.

Resources

Need Help?