x402 Bazaar

secure_token

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cryptographically strong random IDs — Generate N cryptographically-strong, url-safe random tokens server-side — session IDs, API nonces, one-time codes, coupon secrets. Pass count= for how many. A tiny paid utility for agents that need entropy without a crypto library. 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
`count`	No	How many

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: server-side generation, url-safety, cryptographic strength, pricing per call, the x-credit-token header option, and the lack of wallet/API key requirements. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

The core functionality and parameter usage are front-loaded, and the billing/auth details are grouped at the end. Some pricing and marketing detail could be trimmed, but the extra information about payment, headers, and free daily usage is practically important for an agent deciding whether this paid tool is usable.

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, non-destructive utility with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool does, how to pass the count, cost implications, authentication requirements, and availability. There are no critical gaps for the agent to make an initial invocation decision.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema's 'How many' is minimal. The description adds a little meaning by linking count= to generating N tokens, but it does not specify format, valid range, maximum count, or how the string type should encode a number. This meets the baseline requirement without adding substantial detail.

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 clearly identifies a specific operation: generating cryptographically strong, url-safe random tokens. It provides concrete use cases (session IDs, API nonces, one-time codes, coupon secrets), which distinguishes it from the wide sibling set and makes its purpose immediately obvious.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when an agent needs entropy without a crypto library, and it notes the count parameter usage. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the use cases and paid-utility framing imply appropriate usage, and no sibling tool serves this exact role.

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?