Skip to main content
Glama

AIﾉアカリ☆ Agent Trust Receipt

by ai.ai-akari

Run the x402 Result Claim Audit

audit_result_claim_x402

Paid deterministic audit for AI result claims. Price is $0.01 USDC on Base. Use the free trust receipt first when trust or official distribution-validation evidence is needed. After price approval, an unsigned call returns HTTP 402; an x402-aware client signs and retries the same MCP call. Settlement and delivery are real only when the paid receipt is returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYes
evidenceYes
amount_jpyNo
metric_hintYes
intent_contractNo
observed_outcomeNo
minutes_reclaimedNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide no safety signals (all false), so description carries full burden. It discloses pricing, network, payment settlement condition, and the x402 retry protocol, adding meaningful behavior beyond annotations. Lacks details on return format but output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then pricing, alternative, and protocol. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Tool has 7 parameters with nested objects and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description fails to explain required input semantics or how the audit processes claims/evidence. It covers payment/protocol but not the audit's substantive usage, leaving a significant gap for such a complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and description does not explain the meaning or usage of claim, evidence, metric_hint, intent_contract, observed_outcome, or amount fields. Description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema structure.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly identifies a paid deterministic audit of AI result claims, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling get_agent_trust_receipt by advising when to use the free trust receipt instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly advises using the free trust receipt first when trust or official distribution-validation evidence is needed, naming the alternative. Also describes when the paid flow applies and the expected 402/sign/retry sequence.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AIﾉアカリ☆ Agent Trust Receipt toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a trust receipt with validation evidence, the other initiates a paid audit claim. The descriptions explicitly separate validation from payment, minimizing confusion. However, the audit tool's name is somewhat cryptic, so a slight ambiguity remains.

Naming Consistency2/5

The names follow different patterns: 'get_agent_trust_receipt' uses a clear verb-noun structure, while 'audit_result_claim_x402' is a noun-phrase with a technical suffix and no obvious verb. This inconsistency makes the naming less predictable and cohesive.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin and borderline. While the narrow domain of trust receipts and audits is focused, most comparable servers would offer additional operations or a broader set of related tools.

Completeness4/5

The two tools cover the core workflow: obtaining a free trust receipt and requesting a paid audit. No obvious critical gaps exist for this niche purpose, though a tool to query past audit results or receipts could enhance completeness.

Resources