T2000 vs Nano Pay

In-depth architectural comparison of the T2000 and Nano 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?

Choose T2000 when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Finance & Fintech domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: OAuth 2.0 (Free / Open Source).
• Primary tools included: Agent marketplace with escrow and receipt-backed activity, Passport Connect OAuth interface for MCP clients, Agent SDK and CLI for sending, swapping, paying, and escrow.

Explore T2000 Details

Choose Nano 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).

Explore Nano Pay Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	T2000 mission69b Finance & Fintech	Nano Pay Finance & Fintech
Summary	Non-custodial DeFi banking for AI agents on Sui. 35 tools, 20 prompts for save, borrow, invest, exchange, send, pay — with auto yield optimization across NAVI, Suilend, and Cetus.	Pay for x402-priced APIs with feeless, sub-second Nano (XNO) micropayments from a local wallet.
Category & Scope	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": {
    "mission69b-t2000": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "skills"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "nano-pay": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": [
        "feeless402"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons