Five small command-line tools published by Eidon Ze, named mcpdoctor, x402-reconcile, oauthdoctor, wallet-evidence and crosschain-incident, each inspect one narrow part of Web3 agent infrastructure and print a JSON report. Each runs through npx, and none signs a transaction, pays a seller, or logs in to a service. They target two problems: an x402 endpoint that does not return a usable payment challenge, and a payer who has no independent record of what a seller actually delivered. The tools and their positioning are the author’s; the evidence offered for them is the author’s own write-up, not an independent evaluation of all five.
The two problems these tools target
An x402 endpoint answers an ordinary HTTP request with status 402 (Payment Required) and a machine-readable payment challenge that tells a client what to pay, to whom, on which network and in which asset. If that challenge is malformed, incomplete or served from the wrong place, an autonomous client cannot pay correctly, or cannot pay at all. The first problem is therefore a question of whether the challenge can be read and checked before any money moves.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The second problem starts after payment. A payer may see that a transaction exists on a blockchain, but a transaction only shows that value moved. It does not show what the seller delivered. The author’s suite offers a narrower form of evidence: a record of the raw response and the on-chain transaction fields that a given RPC returned, plus a way to normalize cross-chain status data that an operator already has.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The five tools
mcpdoctor: endpoint and discovery inspection
npx @eidonze/mcpdoctor inspect https://your-endpoint/mcp --jsonmcpdoctor parses HTTP 402 payment documents in both the x402 v1 shape (an accepts[] array) and the v2 shape (x402.accepts). It also checks the discovery paths /.well-known/mcp/server.json and /.well-known/x402, and it records a SHA-256 digest of the response.
#1 Best Overall
The name can mislead. mcpdoctor does not speak the MCP protocol: it does not run initialize or tools/list. It is a discovery and payment-document inspector, not an MCP conformance validator. The tool makes network requests.
x402-reconcile: payment challenge inspection
npx x402-reconcile inspect https://api.example.com/paid --method=POST --jsonx402-reconcile reads the challenge and reports the payment scheme (exact or base), the network as a CAIP-2 identifier, the asset, the amount, payTo, the timeout and the request latency. It also records a digest of the raw response bytes, so the exact bytes it parsed can be compared later.
The tool does not sign or pay. Settlement and delivery are reported as NOT_TESTED. The author reports parsing one real public 402 challenge; the write-up does not claim that any payment was verified to settle.
oauthdoctor: authorization metadata discovery
npx oauthdoctor inspect https://mcp.example.com/mcp --jsonoauthdoctor follows a fixed sequence. It sends an unauthenticated request, reads the 401 response’s WWW-Authenticate header for resource_metadata, fetches Protected Resource Metadata, fetches Authorization Server Metadata, and checks whether the server declares PKCE with the S256 method. Each step is a metadata read.
It performs no login, token exchange or credential storage. The tool makes network requests, and the author’s testing used local positive and negative fixtures; the write-up records no public OAuth-protected MCP endpoint encountered at the time of writing.
wallet-evidence: one-RPC Solana transaction evidence
npx wallet-evidence inspect <signature> --rpc=https://api.mainnet-beta.solana.com --jsonwallet-evidence queries one RPC endpoint for a transaction signature and reports the fields that endpoint returns: slot, block time, execution error, parsed instructions, fee, and a SHA-256 of the raw RPC response. Because the result comes from a single provider, the report describes that provider’s view of the chain.
The author saw one transaction signature visible on one public RPC and reported as “not found” on another. For that reason wallet-evidence returns UNKNOWN when the queried RPC cannot find a transaction. That outcome is not proof that the transaction does not exist; it means this provider did not return it.
crosschain-incident: offline incident normalization
npx crosschain-incident inspect --input ./message.json --jsoncrosschain-incident accepts source-side and destination-side status JSON supplied by the operator and produces a conservative evidence report. It makes no network requests. A missing field stays UNKNOWN, and a failure becomes a machine-readable finding.
Rank #3
LayerZero and Hyperlane API integrations are roadmap items. The tool does not query either network today, so its report reflects only the status files it was given.
How the five tools compare
The table uses the same axes for each tool: what it takes as input, what it checks, whether it touches the network, what its output contains, and what the author states it does not test.
| Tool | Input | Network requests | Checks performed | Output | Explicitly untested |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| mcpdoctor | Endpoint URL | Yes | HTTP 402 payment documents (x402 v1 and v2); two well-known discovery paths | JSON with SHA-256 of the response | MCP initialize and tools/list |
| x402-reconcile | Endpoint URL and HTTP method | Yes | Scheme, CAIP-2 network, asset, amount, payTo, timeout, latency |
JSON with digest of raw response bytes | Signing, payment, settlement and delivery (reported as NOT_TESTED) |
| oauthdoctor | MCP endpoint URL | Yes | 401 challenge, resource_metadata, Protected Resource and Authorization Server Metadata, PKCE S256 declaration |
JSON report | Login, token exchange, credential storage |
| wallet-evidence | Transaction signature and one RPC URL | Yes, one RPC call | Slot, block time, execution error, parsed instructions, fee | JSON with SHA-256 of the raw RPC response | Whether other RPC providers return the same transaction |
| crosschain-incident | Operator-supplied source and destination status JSON | No (offline) | Normalization of supplied status; findings for recorded failures | JSON evidence report | Live LayerZero or Hyperlane API queries (roadmap only) |
Reading PASS, FAIL and UNKNOWN
The tools report outcomes at the level of individual checks. Reading them correctly matters more than the labels themselves.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware match- PASS means the specific check the tool ran succeeded on the data it fetched or was given. It does not certify the service as a whole.
- FAIL means a check found a problem, and the tool records it as a machine-readable finding.
- UNKNOWN means the value could not be established. In wallet-evidence it can mean the queried RPC returned no transaction; in crosschain-incident it can mean a field was absent from the supplied JSON. UNKNOWN is not a negative result and should not be written up as one.
- NOT_TESTED marks behavior the tool deliberately does not exercise, such as settlement and delivery in x402-reconcile.
What the validation evidence shows
The author’s write-up is the principal source for the suite, and the validation it describes is limited and differs by tool. It is not an independent benchmark, and it does not establish that all five tools have been independently evaluated.
- x402-reconcile: the author reports parsing one real public 402 challenge. That shows the parser handled one live response; it does not show payment settlement.
- oauthdoctor: the author reports positive and negative local fixtures. No public OAuth-protected MCP endpoint was encountered at the time of the write-up, so the tool has not been described against a live production server.
- wallet-evidence: the author observed one signature visible on one public RPC and not found on another. That single discrepancy is the reason UNKNOWN is the correct output for a provider that cannot find a transaction.
- mcpdoctor and crosschain-incident: the write-up does not describe a separate validation run for either tool.
Running the tools in sequence
The five tools cover different stages of an agent payment. A practical order looks like this:
- Run mcpdoctor against the seller’s endpoint to confirm that the 402 document and discovery files are readable before any payment is considered.
- Run x402-reconcile on the same endpoint and save the JSON, including the raw-byte digest, so the challenge you checked can be compared with what the client later received.
- If the MCP server requires authorization, run oauthdoctor to confirm the metadata chain and the PKCE declaration.
- After a payment, run wallet-evidence with the transaction signature against an RPC you choose. If the result is UNKNOWN, query a second provider and keep both outputs rather than picking one.
- For cross-chain transfers, place the source and destination status records in one JSON file and run crosschain-incident offline to produce a normalized report.
Each output is a separate record. Together they show what each check saw, not a single verdict on whether the seller performed the service.
Operators who want to confirm a specific output can rerun the same command and compare the SHA-256 digests the tools record. A matching digest shows that the raw response bytes are unchanged; a changed digest shows that the endpoint or the RPC returned something different.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesThe suite’s read-only design means every command above can be run without a wallet connected or a credential provided. Keeping that boundary in place is part of what makes the reports easy to audit.
Best Value
Source: Eidon Ze’s write-up describing the five tools. The write-up is the author’s own account; treat the validation described in it as the author’s report.
Within the limits of the evidence above, the suite is best used as a set of scoped diagnostics that each answer one question. It should not be presented as end-to-end assurance of x402 payments, MCP servers, or Solana transactions.
Source citation: example endpoint placeholder is not a source; no external link is established for this title in the available material.
Quick Recap
“
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
