Synthex Forge — x402 Paid Agent Services

Verify Digital Deliverable

verify_digital_deliverable

Read-onlyIdempotent

Accepting a corrupt delivery is the expensive error; the hash. use it rather than verify_agent_delegation for digital deliverable, not agent delegation; an object with 26 fields including action, actual. $0.25 USDC.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`deliverable.spec`	No	[POST /v1/commerce/deliverable-acceptance]
`deliverable.manifest`	No	[POST /v1/commerce/deliverable-acceptance]

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The `id` field of the folded answer.
`ok`	No	Whether every inner call succeeded.
`fail`	No	The `fail` field of the folded answer.
`pass`	No	The `pass` field of the folded answer.
`type`	No	The `type` field of the folded answer.
`score`	No	The `score` field of the folded answer.
`total`	No	The `total` field of the folded answer.
`action`	No	The `action` field of the folded answer.
`actual`	No	The `actual` field of the folded answer.
`counts`	No	The `counts` field of the folded answer.
`detail`	No	The `detail` field of the folded answer.
`status`	No	The `status` field of the folded answer.
`checked`	No	The `checked` field of the folded answer.
`results`	No	One result per inner call.
`summary`	No	One-line summary of the folded answer.
`artifact`	No	The `artifact` field of the folded answer.
`expected`	No	The `expected` field of the folded answer.
`problems`	No	The `problems` field of the folded answer.
`exception`	No	The `exception` field of the folded answer.
`dimensions`	No	The `dimensions` field of the folded answer.
`requirements`	No	The `requirements` field of the folded answer.
`undetermined`	No	The `undetermined` field of the folded answer.
`extra_artifacts`	No	The `extra_artifacts` field of the folded answer.
`verdict_meaning`	No	The `verdict_meaning` field of the folded answer.
`requirement_count`	No	The `requirement_count` field of the folded answer.
`dimensions_checked`	No	The `dimensions_checked` field of the folded answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 31, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "action": {
+      "description": "The `action` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "actual": {
+      "description": "The `actual` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "artifact": {
+      "description": "The `artifact` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "checked": {
+      "description": "The `checked` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "counts": {
+      "description": "The `counts` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "detail": {
+      "description": "The `detail` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "dimensions": {
+      "description": "The `dimensions` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "dimensions_checked": {
+      "description": "The `dimensions_checked` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "exception": {
+      "description": "The `exception` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "expected": {
+      "description": "The `expected` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "extra_artifacts": {
+      "description": "The `extra_artifacts` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "fail": {
+      "description": "The `fail` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "The `id` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether every inner call succeeded.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "pass": {
+      "description": "The `pass` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "problems": {
+      "description": "The `problems` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "requirement_count": {
+      "description": "The `requirement_count` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "requirements": {
+      "description": "The `requirements` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "One result per inner call.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "The `score` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "The `status` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "One-line summary of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "total": {
+      "description": "The `total` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "description": "The `type` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "undetermined": {
+      "description": "The `undetermined` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "verdict_meaning": {
+      "description": "The `verdict_meaning` field of the folded answer.",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new information — the $0.25 USDC cost — which matters for an agent deciding whether to call. However, the claim about return shape ('an object with 26 fields including action, actual') is largely redundant given an output schema exists, and no failure behavior is disclosed.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Density is fine but structure is broken: 'the hash.' is an orphaned fragment and 'an object with 26 fields including action, actual' trails off. Nothing is front-loaded; the most important clause (what is verified) arrives as a dangling noun phrase.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With only 2 optional parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the definition needs little — and it supplies pricing and sibling routing. It still leaves the core mechanism ambiguous (verify against what hash, with what inputs), which is the one thing a verifier tool must make clear.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (deliverable.spec, deliverable.manifest) are documented in structured form. The description adds nothing about what spec or manifest must contain, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The fragments imply the tool verifies a digital deliverable by hash ('Accepting a corrupt delivery is the expensive error; the hash'), which is a recognizable verb+resource. But the sentence is broken mid-thought, so the agent must assemble the purpose from scraps rather than reading a stated one. Sibling differentiation is present, which rescues it from a lower score.

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?

It explicitly routes the agent away from a confusable sibling: 'use it rather than verify_agent_delegation for digital deliverable, not agent delegation.' That is a real when/when-not decision rule, even if the grammar is mangled. It does not cover prerequisites or failure cases.

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

All Synthex Forge — x402 Paid Agent Services 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.