MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit

Payment receipt verify

payment_receipt_verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify an on-chain USDC payment (e.g. an x402 settlement): tx success, USDC transfers, and whether payTo/amount match what you expected. Free: 10 calls/day; then $0.002/call via x402 (MCP params._meta["x402/payment"] or HTTP) or X-API-Key credits. [served by tools.moneytools.dev]

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": {
      "tx": "<tx>"
    },
    "name": "payment_receipt_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tx`	Yes	transaction hash
`chain`	No	base\|ethereum\|arbitrum\|optimism\|polygon
`payTo`	No	expected recipient
`amountUsd`	No	expected USDC amount

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the rate limit (10 calls/day free, then $0.002/call), the two payment paths (x402 via params._meta["x402/payment"] or HTTP, or X-API-Key credits), and the serving host. This is exactly the cost/auth context an agent needs before invoking a metered, open-world tool.

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 verification scope is front-loaded in the first sentence, with billing and transport details trailing. The bracketed host tag is slightly noisy but the whole definition stays to three compact sentences with no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, checks performed, cost, and auth. The only gap is ambiguity versus the sibling x402 verification tool and any note on behavior for a failed or unmined transaction.

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 all four parameters are already documented with examples. The description adds only the framing that payTo and amountUsd are expectations to compare against rather than filters, and says nothing about chain selection behavior; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific verb and resource (verify an on-chain USDC payment) and enumerates exactly what is checked: tx success, USDC transfers, and payTo/amount matching expectations. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling x402_verify_settlement, whose name suggests overlapping scope, so an agent must still guess which one to call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'e.g. an x402 settlement' phrasing and the 'match what you expected' framing imply the scenario (confirming a payment you anticipate), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no mention of the sibling verification tools as alternatives. The caller must infer routing from the name alone.

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

All MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit 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?