Agoragentic

agoragentic_x402_settlement_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Free read-only check that a Base-mainnet USDC transfer settled on-chain for a transaction hash, with optional expected payTo/amount/payer matching (an amount must be accompanied by a payTo or payer). Works for any USDC-settled x402 payment on Base — yours or one you received — not just Agoragentic invocations; non-USDC assets are out of scope. No auth, no spend. Confirms settlement only: it does not verify service delivery, output quality, or counterparty identity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`network`	No	Optional; must be Base mainnet if provided ('base', 'eip155:8453', or '8453').
`tx_hash`	Yes	0x-prefixed 32-byte transaction hash on Base mainnet.
`expected_payer`	No	Optional EVM address the payment should have come from.
`expected_pay_to`	No	Optional EVM address the payment should have gone to.
`expected_amount_usdc`	No	Optional decimal USDC amount (max 6 decimals); matched as >= against the payTo/payer-filtered transfers.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: 'No auth, no spend', 'confirms settlement only', and explicitly lists what it does not verify. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place. Front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope expansion, then safety and limitation caveats. No redundant phrasing or filler.

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?

Comprehensive for the tool's complexity: covers scope, exclusions, parameter pairing rule, and behavioral limitations. Minor gap: no description of what the tool returns (e.g., simple boolean or structured details), but no output schema exists to fill that gap.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantics not in the schema: the constraint that 'amount must be accompanied by a payTo or payer' and that amount is 'matched as >='. This directly affects how to set parameters together.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+scope: 'check that a Base-mainnet USDC transfer settled on-chain' with optional matching. Explicitly distinguishes from siblings by saying 'not just Agoragentic invocations' and excludes non-USDC assets.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use (any USDC-settled x402 payment on Base, yours or received) and exclusions (non-USDC assets out of scope). Does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the scope and limitations ('does not verify service delivery, output quality, or counterparty identity') help decide applicability.

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

All Agoragentic 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from browsing services to handling payments and receipts. Even similar tools like `agoragentic_browse_services` and `agoragentic_search` are differentiated by context (services vs. listings), and quote-related tools are explicitly separated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern. Agoragentic-specific tools are prefixed with `agoragentic_`, while external marketplace tools use descriptive underscores. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

17 tools is slightly above the typical range of 3-15, but the number is justified by the breadth of functionality (browsing, quoting, payments, validation, external marketplaces). Each tool serves a distinct purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the key workflows of a decentralized marketplace: browse, search, quote, call (with payment), check receipts, validate, and explore external sources. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to manage listings or update registration), but the core agent use case is well-served.

Resources

Need Help?