Skip to main content
Glama

Get your payments

get_my_payments
Read-onlyIdempotent

Where your money actually is -- the same ledger the website's Payments page shows you, and the only place this API says what happened AFTER a transfer was created. get_my_jobs tells you a job's share was sent to your Stripe account; this tells you whether it became spendable, which payout swept it to your bank, and whether that payout arrived or failed. Four parts. money_in: one row per completed job you worked, with our gross, platform_fee_usd and net_usd, and a separate 'stripe' object carrying Stripe's OWN net_usd, the balance_transaction_id their reporting is keyed on, available_on and balance_status ('pending' or 'available'), and the payout that swept it. Our figure and Stripe's are both given and neither overwrites the other: ours is derived from the accepted bid, theirs is what reached the balance, and comparing them is the point -- they should agree to the cent. A null 'stripe' means the sync has not seen that credit yet, never that the money is missing. Each row also carries status.kind, one word for where the money is: with_stripe_unconfirmed, credited, available, in_transit, paid, or failed. Branch on that rather than re-deriving it. money_out: one row per job you posted, with posting_fee_usd, charged_usd, refunded_usd and total_usd, plus charged_at_kind, which says whether a null charged_at means 'never charged' or 'charged before we stored the time' -- never read a null timestamp as proof no money moved. payouts: one row per payout to your bank, with status, arrival_date, failure_code, failure_message, and the job payments it carried, because one payout commonly carries several and that grouping cannot be expressed on a job row. reversed_by_payout_id is set when a payout that already PAID was later reversed: Stripe's own status still reads paid, so a caller reading only status will get that wrong. itemisable false means Stripe will never break that payout down; true with an empty jobs list means it can and we have not read it yet -- an empty list never means the payout carried nothing. And stripe_synced_at: everything Stripe-side here is as fresh as that moment and no fresher, because a scheduled sync writes it rather than a live call. Read it before treating 'not confirmed yet' as fact -- it may only mean 'not synced yet'. It is the OLDEST sync time across your credits, so it understates rather than overstates freshness, and is null before the sync has ever run for you. Not paginated: it returns everything, the volume being one row per job worked. And unavailable: three booleans naming any part that could not be read this time -- stripe_facts, payouts, payout_schedule. A failed read degrades rather than erroring, so an empty payouts list, a null stripe_synced_at and has_failed_payout false all have two possible meanings and this is what separates them. Check it before concluding an account has no payouts, has never synced, or has nothing wrong. What never degrades: money_out, summary.poster, and each money_in row's own gross, platform fee, net and transfer id, all of which come from our own tables.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes far beyond that by explaining subtle behaviors: degraded reads instead of errors, empty lists having two possible meanings, the oldest-sync-time freshness semantics, null never meaning missing money, and reversed payouts that Stripe still reports as paid. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 long, but every sentence carries load-bearing semantic information: null meanings, sync freshness, degradation flags, and payout grouping all require explanation. It is front-loaded with a clear identity statement and then organized into named sections (money_in, money_out, payouts, unavailable), making dense technical content navigable. Nothing feels padded or redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so exhaustively: all four response parts, the meaning of every null case, the stripe_synced_at freshness caveat, payout reversal semantics, and the degradation booleans. An agent has everything needed to interpret results correctly and avoid the documented failure modes.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. With 100% schema coverage and no parameters, the description cannot add parameter-level meaning, but it also does not need to. The baseline of 4 applies here because the absence of parameters makes this dimension moot rather than deficient.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it tells the caller exactly what this tool returns and why it matters, framing it as the same ledger the website's Payments page shows. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_my_jobs, which only reports that a transfer was created, whereas this tool reports spendability, payouts, and final arrival. This is unmistakable and well-differentiated.

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?

The description explicitly contrasts this tool with get_my_jobs to settle when each should be used, and it tells callers to branch on status.kind rather than re-deriving state. It also gives concrete interpretive guidance: read stripe_synced_at before treating something as unconfirmed, and check the unavailable booleans before concluding an account has no payouts, has never synced, or has nothing wrong.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources