Payram

Search Payments

search_payments

Search and filter payments with full control over status, network, currency, dates, webhook status, and pagination. Returns a paginated list of matching payments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Number of results per page. Defaults to 50.
`query`	No	Free-text search: tx hash, email, reference ID, customer ID, or invoice ID.
`dateTo`	No	End date filter (ISO 8601, e.g. 2024-12-31T23:59:59Z).
`offset`	No	Pagination offset. Defaults to 0.
`sortBy`	No	Sort field. Valid: created_at, updated_at, payment_status, currency, network, block_id, from_address, to_address, invoice_id, reference_id, customer_id, email, created_by.
`network`	No	Filter by blockchain network (e.g. BTC, ETH, TRX, BASE, POLYGON).
`currency`	No	Filter by currency code (e.g. USDC, USDT, BTC, ETH, TRX, CBBTC).
`dateFrom`	No	Start date filter (ISO 8601, e.g. 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z).
`createdBy`	No	Filter by creator type.
`paymentStatus`	No	Filter by payment status (FILLED = completed).
`sortDirection`	No	Sort direction. Defaults to DESC.
`webhookStatus`	No	Filter by webhook delivery status.
`externalPlatformId`	No	Optional. Auto-discovered from your account if omitted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`showing`	Yes
`payments`	Yes
`totalCount`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that it returns a paginated list and implies a non-destructive search operation. However, it omits details such as default behavior with no filters, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential side effects, making it adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word earns its place. It avoids redundancy with the schema and provides a clear, efficient summary.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (13 optional parameters) and presence of an output schema, the description is functionally complete. It communicates the core capability and return type. A minor improvement would be explicitly noting that all filters are optional, but the schema already indicates no required parameters, so the current description suffices.

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?

The input schema covers all 13 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The mention of 'status, network, currency, dates, webhook status, and pagination' broadly aligns with schema properties but adds no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies per rubric.

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+resource combination ('Search and filter payments') and clearly enumerates the filter dimensions (status, network, currency, dates, webhook status) and pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling lookup_payment by emphasizing filtering and paginated list results.

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?

The description implies usage context: when you need to search/filter a list of payments with full control over filters and pagination. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for single-payment lookup) or mention sibling alternatives like lookup_payment, so it stops short of full guidance.

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?