Generate a cryptographically signed proof-of-spend receipt for any USDC payment tx on Base. Server verifies the on-chain Transfer event, then signs with the AI Rook server wallet (EIP-191, ecrecover-verifiable offline). For agent operator audit trails. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_hash | Yes | 0x + 64 hex transaction hash on Base |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the verification process ('Server verifies the on-chain Transfer event'), the signing method ('AI Rook server wallet (EIP-191)'), and verifiability ('ecrecover-verifiable offline'), which are valuable. It does not cover error cases or auth requirements, but does well for the scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is composed of three efficient sentences: purpose, process, and use case, plus 'Free.' as a final note. There is no fluff, and the primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how it works, and when to use it. The output format is hinted at by 'ecrecover-verifiable offline', but not fully specified, which is a minor gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already fully describes the parameter (tx_hash format), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the transaction type ('any USDC payment tx') and requiring a Transfer event, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'transaction hash on Base'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('cryptographically signed proof-of-spend receipt') scoped to USDC payment tx on Base. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_attestation or call_paid_endpoint, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear use case ('For agent operator audit trails') and implies the tool is for generating receipts after USDC payments. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct (list, preview, sign, escrow state), but get_quote and call_paid_endpoint both return pricing and latency for endpoints, which could cause misselection. The three preview tools are similar but target different endpoints.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with lowercase and underscores (call_, get_, list_, preview_, sign_). No camelCase or mixed conventions.
With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of endpoint discovery, quoting, previewing, and escrow verification. Each tool covers a distinct need without bloat.
The server lacks tools for actually executing paid endpoints or creating escrow jobs, and there is no way to list escrow jobs by client or provider. It focuses on planning and verification, leaving execution to external mechanisms, which is a notable gap for a trading-focused server.
