quartermaster

payment_proof

[x402] Verify an x402 settlement on Base OR Solana from a tx id (0x hash or base58 signature): confirm it succeeded, decode its USDC transfers, optionally assert payTo/amount - returns a single verdict. Costs $0.003. Choose this when you only need the yes/no did-it-land answer; use settlement_assurance for the full scored report (proof + receipt + optional endpoint audit).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hash`	Yes	0x Base tx hash or base58 Solana signature
`payTo`	No	expected recipient: 0x address (Base) or base58 wallet (Solana)
`amount`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Reveals it costs $0.003, decodes USDC transfers, and returns a single verdict. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It doesn't mention potential errors or rate limits, but overall transparent about core behavior.

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?

Two sentences covering purpose, inputs, behavior, cost, and sibling differentiation. No wasted words; front-loaded with key info.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, description explains inputs well but lacks detail on return value format (what is a 'verdict'?). Mentions optional assertions but doesn't describe failure behavior. Minor gap given complexity.

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 67% (hash and payTo have descriptions, amount does not). Description adds meaning for hash and payTo (chain-specific formats) but does not elaborate on amount beyond schema's type string. Compensates partially but not fully.

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 specifies 'Verify an x402 settlement on Base OR Solana from a tx id', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tool settlement_assurance by contrasting 'yes/no verdict' vs 'full scored report'.

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 says 'Choose this when you only need the yes/no did-it-land answer; use settlement_assurance for the full scored report', giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use with a named alternative.

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

All quartermaster tools Inspect

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

B3.1/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple x402 transaction verification tools (payment_proof, settlement_assurance, tx_status) and multiple summarization tools (summarize_url, tldr_text). However, descriptions provide enough detail to differentiate them, though an agent could still be confused.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun patterns (e.g., summarize_url, generate_uuid) with noun phrases (e.g., base64, dns_lookup) and inconsistent prefixes (e.g., base_token_info vs base_allowance vs base64). The x402_* group is consistent, but overall naming lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 49 tools, the server is very heavy. While it aims to be a broad utility server, this number exceeds typical well-scoped servers (3-15 tools) and risks being overwhelming for agents, especially given the mix of unrelated domains.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of utilities (crypto, AI, web, dev, x402 payments) but lacks depth in any single area. For instance, there are many read-only tools but few state-changing operations beyond x402. Gaps like file handling or database access are expected given its scope.

Resources

Need Help?