Both /docs/tools and /docs/tools/openzeppelin-relayer describe OpenZeppelin Relayer as "also known as Stellar Channels Service" and as managed infrastructure. That wording presents two things as one product when their operational contracts differ.
The canonical OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-relayer project is self-hostable and AGPL-3.0. Its operator runs it, holds signer authority, and funds the Stellar account that pays fees. A managed offering has a different answer for each of those.
Reproduce:
curl -Ls https://developers.stellar.org/docs/tools | grep -c -i 'Stellar Channels Service'
curl -Ls https://developers.stellar.org/docs/tools/openzeppelin-relayer | grep -c -i 'Stellar Channels Service'
Both return a non-zero count today. (Matching the full phrase can fail on the second page because an anchor tag splits it — count the product name instead.)
Why it matters
A reader following these pages gets the wrong answer about who funds the relayer account and how it is topped up, while correctly citing official documentation. That is harder to catch than an obviously missing page, because the citation is genuine.
Your own x402 page already draws the distinction — it describes the plugin as using the Relayer framework while leveraging managed Channels underneath. The Tools pages have not adopted that separation.
Prevalence
2 of 2 directly relevant Tools pages. We have not scanned the wider corpus, so this is a floor.
Suggested fixes, cheapest first
- Remove the "also known as" framing from both pages and name the managed offering and OpenZeppelin Relayer as separate concepts, each linking to its own source.
- If the managed offering builds on Relayer, state that relationship precisely rather than as an alias.
- Optionally add a short comparison covering who operates it, who holds signer authority, who funds fees, and what any status guarantee covers — those are the axes a reader is actually choosing between.
Version numbers, supported networks, and provider health are observation-time facts; dating them would prevent a stale reading from surviving as current guidance.
What we do today
We verify the Tools description against the canonical repository before advising anyone on custody or fee funding — which rather defeats the purpose of consulting the official docs for a tools question.
Both
/docs/toolsand/docs/tools/openzeppelin-relayerdescribe OpenZeppelin Relayer as "also known as Stellar Channels Service" and as managed infrastructure. That wording presents two things as one product when their operational contracts differ.The canonical OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-relayer project is self-hostable and AGPL-3.0. Its operator runs it, holds signer authority, and funds the Stellar account that pays fees. A managed offering has a different answer for each of those.
Reproduce:
Both return a non-zero count today. (Matching the full phrase can fail on the second page because an anchor tag splits it — count the product name instead.)
Why it matters
A reader following these pages gets the wrong answer about who funds the relayer account and how it is topped up, while correctly citing official documentation. That is harder to catch than an obviously missing page, because the citation is genuine.
Your own x402 page already draws the distinction — it describes the plugin as using the Relayer framework while leveraging managed Channels underneath. The Tools pages have not adopted that separation.
Prevalence
2 of 2 directly relevant Tools pages. We have not scanned the wider corpus, so this is a floor.
Suggested fixes, cheapest first
Version numbers, supported networks, and provider health are observation-time facts; dating them would prevent a stale reading from surviving as current guidance.
What we do today
We verify the Tools description against the canonical repository before advising anyone on custody or fee funding — which rather defeats the purpose of consulting the official docs for a tools question.