Loading ToolBench
Monetize any MCP server with stablecoin micropayments via MPP on Tempo
This is a monetization gateway wrapping MCP servers with micropayment logic. Tool definitions are present but lack depth. Descriptions are brief (10-50 chars, well below the 194-char baseline) and omit critical context like prerequisites, side effects, and when to use each tool. Parameter descriptions exist but are minimal. No output schemas are documented. Error handling is absent from tool definitions. The 15 tools span 4 different example servers (peer-cash, streaming, subscription, weather), making it difficult to assess as a cohesive system. Most tools are READ_ONLY, but peer_cash_prepare, peer_cash_finalize, and peer_cash_prepare_access_policy are WRITE operations without confirmation patterns or dry-run support. Tool naming is inconsistent: peer_cash_* uses underscores, but the pattern mixes verb-noun (get_weather, get_forecast) with noun-only (day_pass, call_pack). Several tools lack clear action verbs (day_pass, time_only_pass, call_pack read as nouns, not actions). No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) are visible in the source.
Unlimited time, $0.005 buys 100 calls (best for batch use).
Access-key ($0.005 / 5 calls) — buy a daily forecast bundle.
Get a market wisdom quote. $0.005 buys a key good for 5 calls or 1 day, whichever comes first.
Get an N-day forecast (1-14). Costs $0.005 per call.
Per-call ($0.001) — best for one-shot lookups.
Discover current Peer Cash payout rails and currencies.
Descriptions are critically short (10-50 chars vs 194-char baseline). Most lack context on WHEN to use the tool, WHAT it returns, and prerequisites. E.g., 'Discover current Peer Cash payout rails and currencies' omits whether this is a discovery call or if it requires prior setup.
No output schemas documented. LLMs cannot plan downstream calls or extract required fields. E.g., peer_cash_capabilities returns 'payout rails and currencies' but the structure is unknown, does it return an array? Object with nested fields? This forces LLMs to guess.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 42 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Estimate fiat received for a Base USDC amount. Costs $0.001.
Resolve a confirmed createDeposit receipt. Costs $0.001.
Read the current Peer Cash order state.
Prepare unsigned Base USDC cash-out transactions. Costs $0.005.
Prepare an unsigned restricted-rail access policy. Costs $0.001.
Free liveness check.
Simulates an "AI thought" that takes N seconds. Pay $0.0005 per call via session.
Lightweight "next chunk" call against the same channel ($0.0001).
Unlimited calls, $0.01 buys 5 minutes of access (no call cap).
Inconsistent naming conventions. peer_cash_* uses verb_noun correctly, but day_pass, time_only_pass, call_pack, and tick are noun-only or lack clear action verbs. LLMs struggle to infer intent from ambiguous names. E.g., 'day_pass' could mean 'get_day_pass', 'buy_day_pass', or 'validate_day_pass'.
WRITE operations (peer_cash_prepare, peer_cash_finalize, peer_cash_prepare_access_policy) lack confirmation or dry-run patterns. Agents can trigger irreversible transactions without safeguards. No error handling guidance in descriptions.
No tool annotations visible (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). The protocol supports these to guide agent behavior, but they are absent. Agents cannot distinguish safe reads from destructive writes without parsing descriptions.