Lunium — Brazilian PIX and stablecoin payments

Verify a PIX payment (open, no API key)

lunium_verify_pix_payment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirms that a specific PIX payment actually settled in Brazil, using the Central Bank end-to-end identifier (E2E). Free and open: no API key, no Lunium account. You can verify a payment you did not make, handed to you by a counterparty you have no reason to trust — that is the point of this tool. Its public result excludes receipt links, PIX keys, full names and tax numbers.

Use it when someone claims to have paid and you need proof before releasing goods, credit, access or a next step; when reconciling a receipt; or as the final check after a settlement.

Returns verificado (Lunium can attest to this payment), pago, valor_brl, pago_em, recebedor_iniciais and instituicao. It never returns a receipt link, PIX key, full name or tax number — it proves the payment without exposing the parties. Check the amount and the timestamp yourself: a valid E2E for R$ 1,00 is not proof of a R$ 1.000,00 payment.

Do not use it to search by amount, name or date — the E2E is the only key. Do not use it to follow a sale you started here; lunium_get_crypto_sale carries the E2E once it exists.

Errors: erro="e2e_invalido" (acao=corrigir) means the string is not in Central Bank format — 32 characters in total. Fix it; repeating it unchanged will never work. erro="nao_encontrado" (acao=parar) means Lunium did not settle this payment — it is NOT proof the PIX never happened, since another institution may have settled it. Report that distinction to your user instead of alleging fraud.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`e2e`	Yes	Central Bank end-to-end id, exactly 32 characters: 'E' + 8-digit ISPB + 12-digit YYYYMMDDHHmm + 11 alphanumerics. Copy it verbatim from the receipt or the counterparty; do not reformat or trim.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`aviso`	Yes
`dados`	Yes
`fonte`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026
- addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / dados / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / dados / properties / comprovante_url
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / dados / properties / e2e
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / dados / properties / liquidado_por
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / dados / properties / origem_cripto
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "boolean",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```
First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it never returns receipt links, PIX keys, full names, or tax numbers; it explains the two error modes e2e_invalido and nao_encontrado with the appropriate action; and it warns that a non-found result does not prove fraud. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured and front-loaded with the core behavior, followed by use cases, return-value caveats, exclusions, and errors. There is minor redundancy in stating twice that results exclude receipt links, PIX keys, full names, and tax numbers, but every section earns its place given the potential for misuse.

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 tool with a single required parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, exact usage scenarios, privacy behavior, the need to verify amount and timestamp, exclusions, alternatives, and error handling. There is no material gap an agent would need to infer.

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 schema already documents the e2e parameter thoroughly, including the 32-character format and the instruction to copy it verbatim. The description reinforces that the E2E is the only valid key, adds the 'do not reformat or trim' expectation, and explains what e2e_invalido means for correction. This adds value beyond the schema, though most parameter meaning is already present.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it confirms that a specific PIX payment settled in Brazil, keyed by the Central Bank E2E identifier. It also differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly saying it is not a search tool and pointing to lunium_get_crypto_sale for sales started in this system.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: before releasing goods, credit, access, or a next step; when reconciling a receipt; or as a final settlement check. It also gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: not for searching by amount, name, or date, and not for following a sale started here, naming the alternative tool.

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

All Lunium — Brazilian PIX and stablecoin payments 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?