quartermaster

settlement_assurance

[x402] FLAGSHIP: from a tx id on Base (0x hash) or Solana (base58 signature), prove a completed x402 payment is real and sound - onchain success, USDC transfer match to an expected wallet/amount, a receipt, and an optional audit of the issuing endpoint - as one 0-100 scored report with a verdict. Costs $0.03. This is the most complete post-payment check; use payment_proof if you only need a plain pass/fail, tx_status for raw status, or x402_audit to grade a seller endpoint by URL (no payment yet).

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
`resource`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it checks onchain success, USDC transfer match, receipt, optional audit, returns a 0-100 scored report with verdict, and costs $0.03. However, it does not detail the exact response structure or error handling.

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 a single sentence that packs substantial detail, including purpose, alternatives, cost, and output. While dense, it remains clear and front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple checks, scoring, cost) and lack of output schema, the description covers the main aspects well. It does not specify the exact format of the report, but provides sufficient context for selection.

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 coverage is 50% and the description adds some context for hash (0x vs base58) and payTo (expected recipient), but amount and resource are left to schema descriptions. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool proves a completed x402 payment is real and sound, covering onchain success, USDC transfer match, receipt, and optional endpoint audit, with a scored report. It distinguishes from sibling tools like payment_proof, tx_status, and x402_audit by specifying when to use each.

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 tells when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'use payment_proof if you only need a plain pass/fail, tx_status for raw status, or x402_audit to grade a seller endpoint by URL'. Also positions itself as the 'most complete post-payment check'.

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?