Skip to main content
Glama

Purchase record check

wever_purchase-record-check
Read-only

Agent Purchases: submit the buyer’s own record of paid calls, each with what was ordered, the provider and endpoint, the quoted amount, the amount paid, the asset, network and destination paid, the settlement reference, the receipt held, what was kept of the result (stored, a summary, only a status or nothing), the result status and the time. The signed report totals what the ledger shows was paid by currency, names every field missing from every record, with missing amounts, destinations, results and receipts first, and says for each invisible failure (price drift between quote and charge, a call charged twice, a success status carrying the wrong result, money owed back with no proof to claim it) how many records can detect it and which cannot. Approval records are wever_approval-record-check, one workflow run’s records are wever_run-record-check and one job’s payments matched to receipts are wever_job-receipt-pack, and the boutique Agent Purchase API’s own intent and order state is wever_purchase-status. Verdict failures_undetectable, record_gaps or reconstructable. POST /api/purchase-record-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-purchases-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-purchases/.

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": {
      "records": "<records>"
    },
    "name": "wever_purchase-record-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
recordsYesThe buyer’s own record of paid calls.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with an explicit no-network/no-money-movement/no-external-write statement. It goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the x402 pricing (0.10 USDC on Base, 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days), the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to exact JSON arguments and route, and the Ed25519 signed receipt.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and sibling routing are front-loaded, but the second sentence is a single sprawling run-on that lists every record field already documented in the schema. That enumeration and the trailing contract/human-page URLs dilute an otherwise efficient opening.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the report's totals, missing-field ranking, invisible-failure detection and the three verdict values. Combined with pricing, auth and sibling routing, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the shape of the receipt itself is left implicit.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by enumerating the record fields as a coherent set and stating which missing fields are ranked first in the report. The wallet-proof binding to the exact JSON arguments is parameter-relevant guidance the schema cannot express. It does not explain the optional 'label' parameter's role beyond what the schema says.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('submit the buyer's own record of paid calls') and immediately states what the signed report does. It explicitly names the sibling for each adjacent case (wever_approval-record-check, wever_run-record-check, wever_job-receipt-pack, wever_purchase-status), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 gives clear routing context by naming four sibling tools and the domain each covers, which is stronger than most definitions. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use framing against related checks like wever_double-charge-check or wever_price-truth-check, which the report overlaps with analytically.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources