MoneyTools Settle

Create delivery receipt

receipt_create

Idempotent

Create a delivery receipt (status paid) for an order/request ref; idempotent per ref. Needs a key mts_ (X-API-Key header or apiKey argument). No key? call settle_trial_key (free, 50 calls/7 days). Full plan 1 USDC/30d incl. 1,000 calls via x402.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "receipt_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tx`	No	Settlement tx hash on Base, 0x + 64 hex.
`ref`	No	Your order / request id (idempotency key).
`note`	No	Free-text note (max 200 chars).
`apiKey`	No	Your MoneyTools Settle key mts_… (alternative to the X-API-Key header). No key: call settle_trial_key.
`webhook`	No	Public https URL we POST to when the status resolves.
`amountUsd`	No	USD amount as decimal string, e.g. "0.25".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "idempotent per ref" so the agent knows retries are safe. It adds auth mechanics (X-API-Key header or apiKey argument), the resulting status, and pricing/rate-limit context (1 USDC/30d, 1,000 calls via x402) that annotations cannot express.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then auth requirement, then the fallback path and pricing. Dense with domain shorthand (mts_, x402) but nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

Covers what a mutation tool needs: side effect (status paid), idempotency, auth mechanics, and the no-key fallback route. Return shape is not described, but no output schema exists and the response format is only a minor gap for a create call whose result is a receipt.

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 each of the six parameters is already documented, including ref as the idempotency key and apiKey as the header alternative. The description restates the ref idempotency and key argument but adds no syntax or formatting meaning beyond the schema, which makes the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a delivery receipt") plus the resulting status (paid) and the anchoring identifier (order/request ref). This clearly separates it from receipt_get and receipt_update by name semantics, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Gives concrete eligibility guidance: you need an mts_ key, and if you have none, call settle_trial_key with stated free-tier limits (50 calls/7 days). It does not spell out when to prefer receipt_update over re-creating, but the create-vs-read/update split is reasonably implied.

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

All MoneyTools Settle 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?