Cybercentry Verification vs Run.pay

In-depth architectural comparison of the Cybercentry Verification and Run.pay MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

C

Choose Cybercentry Verification when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Finance & Fintech domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: list_services, recent_exploits, wallet_verification.

Explore Cybercentry Verification Details

Choose Run.pay when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Finance & Fintech domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: list_services, call_service.

Explore Run.pay Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	C Cybercentry Verification Finance & Fintech	Run.pay Finance & Fintech
Summary	Pay-per-call security verification for wallets, contracts, agents and apps, in USDC over x402.	Stripe-native marketplace where AI agents discover and pay per call for API services.
Category & Scope	Finance & Fintech	Finance & Fintech

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "cybercentry-verification": {
      "url": "https://centry.cybercentry.co.uk/api/mcp"
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "run-pay": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "requests"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons