Skip to main content
Glama

Rokha

by ai.rokha
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Prove a payment you made met the demand

singularityagent__prove_payment
Read-only

After paying somebody, prove from the chain alone that the payment met the demand it answered — without relying on the payee to say so. Takes the transaction signature and the demand's terms (payee, amount, mint, the exact token account, memo, deadline, payer) and reports each term as its own check: what was expected, what the chain shows, and whether it holds. Only finalized state counts. Reach for it when a counterparty says a payment did not arrive, arrived late, went to the wrong place or lacked a reference, or whenever a payment has to be evidenced to a third party. verdict is proven only when the transaction finalized and every stated term holds, contradicted when at least one does not (a real payment can still be the wrong one), and unproven when the chain cannot settle it yet — not found, not finalized, or a block the endpoint will not date — which is never the same as contradicted. Read checks before verdict. The memo is returned as untrusted text, because whoever signed wrote it. Solana only. This reads: it signs nothing and sends nothing, and it proves what the chain shows, not that the payee credited it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesThe wallet the demand said would be paid. Matched by token-account owner.
fromNoThe wallet that should have paid. Checked against whoever the funds left.
memoNoText the demand said the payment must carry.
mintNoToken address — the mint. Omit for native SOL. Never a ticker.
chainNoSolana chain id or alias. Defaults to "solana".
amountYesWhole tokens as a decimal string, as the demand stated it.
expiresAtNoWhen the demand stopped being valid, ISO 8601. The payment must have landed before it.
signatureYesThe signature of the payment transaction.
tokenAccountNoThe exact destination token account the demand named, where it named one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "amount": {
+    "description": "Whole tokens as a decimal string, as the demand stated it.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "chain": {
+    "description": "Solana chain id or alias. Defaults to \"solana\".",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "expiresAt": {
+    "description": "When the demand stopped being valid, ISO 8601. The payment must have landed before it.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "from": {
+    "description": "The wallet that should have paid. Checked against whoever the funds left.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "memo": {
+    "description": "Text the demand said the payment must carry.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "mint": {
+    "description": "Token address — the mint. Omit for native SOL. Never a ticker.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "signature": {
+    "description": "The signature of the payment transaction.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "to": {
+    "description": "The wallet the demand said would be paid. Matched by token-account owner.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "tokenAccount": {
+    "description": "The exact destination token account the demand named, where it named one.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
    • addedInput schema / required
      Added value: +[
+  "signature",
+  "to",
+  "amount"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description reinforces reading-only behavior: 'This reads: it signs nothing and sends nothing.' It adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: 'Only finalized state counts', the semantics of verdict states (proven/contradicted/unproven), and that the memo is returned as untrusted text. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide, justifying a strong score.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is lengthy but information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose and then covers edge cases, verdict logic, and read-only nature. Each sentence adds value, and the structure flows logically from purpose to usage to behavior. It is not unnecessarily verbose given the tool's complexity, so it earns a 4.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so clearly: the `verdict` field's possible values and their semantics, the `checks` array concept, and the guidance to read `checks` before `verdict`. It also states 'Solana only' for scope. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what to expect, though it doesn't detail the exact structure of `checks`.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all parameters. The description adds context by listing the parameters as 'the demand's terms' and indicating they are individually checked, but it does not add significant new details beyond the schema. It meets the baseline for complete schema coverage but does not substantially enhance parameter understanding.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'prove from the chain alone that the payment met the demand it answered'. It specifies the resource (payment evidence) and the action (prove) precisely. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like singularityagent__inspect_payment, but the specific focus on proving against a demand makes it clear enough for an agent to select it. Slight deduction for not naming alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage scenarios: 'Reach for it when a counterparty says a payment did not arrive, arrived late, went to the wrong place or lacked a reference, or whenever a payment has to be evidenced to a third party.' It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Clear context without exclusions earns a 4.

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

All Rokha toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources