KushBitx AgentProof

Payment Proof

verify_payment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify Base USDC payment by transaction hash: did my x402 payment settle? Check recipient and amount (and optional sender) against the official USDC Transfer logs before releasing goods or credit. Returns VERIFIED, MISMATCH, FAILED or PENDING_OR_NOT_FOUND with block, confirmations, the matching transfer and a Basescan link. Read-only: never moves funds. Paid tool: 0.00288 USDC per call on Base via x402 (exact scheme). An unpaid call returns the payment requirement and charges nothing.

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": {
      "chain": "<chain>",
      "txHash": "<txHash>",
      "expectedTo": "<expectedTo>",
      "expectedAmount": "<expectedAmount>"
    },
    "name": "verify_payment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`chain`	Yes
`txHash`	Yes
`expectedTo`	Yes
`expectedFrom`	No
`expectedAmount`	Yes	Expected USDC amount.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, and the description adds substantive context beyond them: the exact outcome set (VERIFIED, MISMATCH, FAILED, PENDING_OR_NOT_FOUND), returned fields (block, confirmations, matching transfer, Basescan link), the explicit "never moves funds" guarantee, and the pay-per-call economics including what an unpaid call does (returns requirement, charges nothing).

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?

Information is front-loaded: purpose first, then the decision context, then return values, safety, and payment mechanics. Every sentence contributes something an agent needs (trigger, outcomes, cost, failure mode), with no filler or restated title.

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?

For a five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the possible statuses and the returned fields, plus the payment requirement and the read-only guarantee. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret the result is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 20%, the description does real compensation by mapping the inputs to purpose: tx hash identifies the transaction, recipient and amount are the expected values checked, sender is optional, and chain is Base USDC. It stops short of clarifying amount units/decimals beyond "USDC" or that chain accepts only "base", so a small gap remains.

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 and resource ("Verify Base USDC payment by transaction hash") plus the verification target (recipient, amount, optional sender) against USDC Transfer logs. This is clearly differentiated from siblings like preflight, signature_check and token_risk, which concern risk/format checks rather than on-chain settlement proof.

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?

"before releasing goods or credit" gives an explicit trigger, and the opening question ("did my x402 payment settle?") frames the decision it answers. It does not explicitly name a sibling or state when to prefer this over them, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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

All KushBitx AgentProof tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?