Payram

Check Node Sync

check_node_sync

Per-chain node health verdict: healthy / lagging / unreachable / listener-down. Computes how old each RPC node’s last block is — any non-BTC chain older than 10 minutes (BTC: 90 minutes, since BTC blocks every ~10m) is flagged as lagging or not syncing. Also checks the chain’s listener worker. When something is wrong it names the exact remediation (usually restart_payram_worker). Read-only — run this first; restart second; re-run this ~60s after a restart to confirm recovery.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chains`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`healthy`	Yes
`workers`	Yes
`workersAvailable`	Yes

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, exact lagging thresholds (10 min for non-BTC, 90 min for BTC), the listener check, and that it names exact remediation steps. No contradictions.

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 compact: three sentences that front-load the key verdict and then detail thresholds and workflow. Every sentence provides actionable context without redundancy.

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 an output schema present for return values, the description covers the remaining context: what triggers lagging, what else is checked (listener), and the recommended operational sequence. This is complete for a read-only diagnostic tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what is checked but not parameter-specific semantics, since there are none to describe.

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 the tool produces a per-chain node health verdict with specific categories (healthy/lagging/unreachable/listener-down), which is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like payram_doctor and restart_payram_worker.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Read-only — run this first; restart second; re-run this ~60s after a restart to confirm recovery.' This precisely defines when to use the tool and the workflow around it, including naming the remediation tool (restart_payram_worker).

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

All Payram tools Inspect

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

B3.3/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct targets, but there is notable overlap in diagnostics (check_node_sync, check_payment_readiness, payram_doctor, test_payram_connection) and a large cluster of snippet generators for different languages that could be confused. The descriptions help, but several tools appear to serve the same underlying purpose.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used consistently, but verb prefixes vary unpredictably: check_, generate_, get_, list_, lookup_, search_, snippet_, test_, restart_, etc. Similar actions use different verbs (lookup_payment vs search_payments vs get_payment_summary; generate_payment_route_snippet vs snippet_express_payment_route), making the naming pattern less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 52 tools, the set is significantly over-scoped for a developer assistance server. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., a single snippet generator with language parameters, or unified health diagnostics), and the count introduces unnecessary complexity for agents.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers payments (create, lookup, search, summary), diagnostics, docs, and many integration snippets, but lacks direct payout creation (only snippet generators), no refund or wallet creation. These are notable gaps for a payments platform server, though the snippet tools and diagnostics mitigate some dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?