MoneyTools Settle

Spend log / receipts

spend_log

Read-onlyIdempotent

0.003 USDC per call via x402, no key (unpaid call returns PaymentRequired; retry with params.meta["x402/payment"]). Spend log / receipts for a payer address: totals (settled, pending, refunded), top sellers and the latest receipts over the last N days (1-31; read from Settle's own receipt records, not from Base RPC history). 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": "spend_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Look-back window in days (1-31, Settle receipt records).
`limit`	No	Max receipts returned.
`payer`	No	Payer / agent wallet address 0x… (40 hex).
`apiKey`	No	Your MoneyTools Settle key mts_… (alternative to the X-API-Key header). No key: call settle_trial_key.
`sessionId`	No	Your session / run id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: per-call price (0.003 USDC via x402), the failure mode for unpaid calls (PaymentRequired) and the exact retry path (params._meta['x402/payment']), the required mts_ key and header alternative, and the fallback to settle_trial_key. It omits pagination behavior and how much of the receipt set is returned when limit is unset.

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?

The content is dense and one long run-on, with the payment/pricing details front-loaded ahead of the actual tool purpose, which violates front-loading. Pricing is stated twice ('0.003 USDC per call via x402' and 'Full plan 1 USDC/30d incl. 1,000 calls'), and monetization detail crowds out the spend-log description an agent needs first.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and a read-only profile, the description covers auth, cost, error/retry behavior, data source, and the returned aggregates — enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is return-shape detail (ordering, default limit) which, without an output schema, would have been worth one clause.

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% and each of the five parameters already carries its own explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the 1-31 bound for days (already in the schema) and the semantics of the payer address. Baseline 3 applies — no meaningful semantics beyond the structured fields.

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?

The second sentence names the resource (spend log / receipts for a payer address) and enumerates the payload: totals (settled, pending, refunded), top sellers, latest receipts over a look-back window. It even clarifies the data source ('Settle's own receipt records, not from Base RPC history'), which distinguishes it from chain-history tools. It stops short of naming which sibling (receipt_get, spend_check, settle_report) to prefer, and the actual purpose is buried behind payment boilerplate in sentence one.

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 description gives clear prerequisite routing ('No key? call settle_trial_key') and the auth mechanism, which is genuine when-to-use guidance for access. However, it offers no guidance on choosing this aggregate spend-log view over sibling readers such as receipt_get, spend_check, or spend_cap_get, and no exclusions. Usage is implied by the parameter set rather than stated.

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?