Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Receipts

by com.dropwatchhq

issue_receipt

Mint a verifiable provenance receipt for an autonomous-agent action. Returns a signed (ed25519), content-hashed (SHA-256), server-timestamped receipt that is hash-chained to this agent's prior receipts (tamper-evident audit trail). Pass the raw inputs/outputs (we hash them — raw data is never stored) OR pre-computed sha256 hashes. Use for compliance, audit trails, and dispute resolution of agentic actions. PAID: $0.01 USDC/call via x402.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesWhat the agent did, e.g. 'sent_payment' or 'approved_refund' or 'tool_call:search'.
inputsNoRaw inputs to the action (any JSON). Hashed to a commitment; raw data not stored.
outputsNoRaw outputs/result of the action (any JSON). Hashed to a commitment; raw data not stored.
agent_idNoStable identifier for the acting agent (chains group by this).
metadataNoOptional small key/value context (model, version, request id, etc.).
inputs_hashNoAlternatively, a pre-computed sha256 hex (or 'sha256:<hex>') of inputs.
outputs_hashNoAlternatively, a pre-computed sha256 hex (or 'sha256:<hex>') of outputs.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently explains that inputs are hashed and not stored, the receipt is signed, content-hashed, timestamped, and hash-chained. This covers key behaviors, though auth requirements or error conditions are omitted.

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?

The description is concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a thorough overview including the return format, hash-chaining, and privacy. Minor gaps exist, such as no mention of error handling or rate limits.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by clarifying that inputs/outputs are hashed and not stored, and that inputs_hash/outputs_hash are alternatives for pre-computed hashes. This exceeds the schema alone.

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 'Mint a verifiable provenance receipt' as a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings list_receipts and verify_receipt by focusing on creation.

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?

It states 'Use for compliance, audit trails, and dispute resolution' and mentions the $0.01/call cost. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool vs alternatives.

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

All Agent Receipts toolsInspect
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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: creation, listing, and verification of receipts. No overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern with snake_case (issue_receipt, list_receipts, verify_receipt), consistent except for the natural pluralization of list_receipts.

Tool Count5/5

3 tools is perfect for the focused domain of receipt management. Each tool serves a necessary function without bloat.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full lifecycle: create, list, and verify. For an immutable audit trail, no update or delete is needed, and verify doubles as a get.

Resources