ExchangeRebel — pay-per-call APIs for AI agents (x402 on Solana)

receipt_verify

$0.01 USDC on Solana per receipt - the payment buys one signed receipt verification: submit one captured 402 challenge plus the PAYMENT-RESPONSE header from its paid call and receive the decoded header fields, a per-field match report against the challenge, and the chain verdict for the header's transaction. The header's unsigned status is stated plainly - the service never upgrades an unsigned header into an attestation; the chain is ground truth.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "challenge": "<challenge>",
      "paymentResponse": "<paymentResponse>"
    },
    "name": "receipt_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`challenge`	Yes	The captured 402 challenge object exactly as issued by the endpoint that was paid. Processed in memory only, never stored.
`paymentResponse`	Yes	The PAYMENT-RESPONSE header value from the paid call (base64 JSON string; a raw JSON string or the decoded object are also accepted). Processed in memory only, never stored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and covers several non-obvious traits: the $0.01 USDC-on-Solana cost per call, the one-receipt-per-payment scope, and the explicit limitation that an unsigned header is never upgraded into an attestation, with chain state as ground truth. It does not address failure modes, idempotency, or what a negative verdict looks like, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Pricing and the single-receipt scope are front-loaded in the opening clause, then the operation and its outputs follow in one dense but readable sentence. The closing sentence about unsigned status is the one non-obvious caveat and earns its place. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does the necessary work: it names the three things returned (decoded header fields, match report, chain verdict) and sets expectations about what the verdict does and does not attest. What is missing is error or partial-match behavior, so an agent cannot predict the response when the header fails verification.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 'processed in memory only, never stored' note. The description reinforces the pairing of challenge and PAYMENT-RESPONSE header but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a precise verb and resource: verify one signed receipt by submitting a captured 402 challenge plus the PAYMENT-RESPONSE header, returning decoded fields, a per-field match report, and a chain verdict. That is far more specific than the name alone. It stops short of naming how it differs from adjacent siblings such as receipt_criteria, receipt_precheck, or settlement_verify, leaving that boundary to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the phrase 'from its paid call' signals this runs after a 402 payment has been made. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of the related receipt_precheck/criteria tools, and no statement about what to do if the challenge and header do not belong together. An agent can infer the scenario but is not routed away from alternatives.

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

All ExchangeRebel — pay-per-call APIs for AI agents (x402 on Solana) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?