Skavio USDC Payment Verification & Proof MCP

Match exact USDC recipient and amount

match_native_usdc_payment

Read-only

Confirm an exact native Circle USDC recipient and six-decimal transfer amount for a completed transaction on a supported EVM chain or Solana, with chain-specific finality checks. Use when reconciling a payment with an expected wallet and amount; for inspecting a transfer without expected values choose verify_native_usdc; for a PDF choose usdc_transfer_evidence_pdf. Requires tx_hash, recipient and amount, does not send funds or create an invoice. Costs 0.03 USDC via x402 v2; paid MCP wallets can pay native USDC on Base or Solana.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`amount`	Yes	Positive exact USDC decimal string, at most six decimal places. Never a floating point number.
`network`	No	Blockchain inspected; the separate API payment always settles native USDC on Base.	base
`tx_hash`	Yes	Public transaction to inspect: 0x plus 64 hex characters for EVM; base58 64-byte Solana signature. Must match network.
`recipient`	Yes	Expected recipient: EVM 0x address or Solana owner wallet, not a token account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed20 schema fields changedOct 17, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / amount / description

Added value: +"Positive exact USDC decimal string, at most six decimal places. Never a floating point number."

addedInput schema / properties / amount / maxLength
```
Added value: +24
```
addedInput schema / properties / amount / minLength
```
Added value: +1
```

addedInput schema / properties / amount / pattern

Added value: +"^(?!0+(?:\\.0+)?$)[0-9]{1,17}(?:\\.[0-9]{1,6})?$"

removedInput schema / properties / amount / title
```
Removed value: -"Amount"
```

addedInput schema / properties / network / description

Added value: +"Blockchain inspected; the separate API payment always settles native USDC on Base."

addedInput schema / properties / network / enum

Added value: +[
+  "base",
+  "polygon",
+  "arbitrum",
+  "optimism",
+  "ethereum",
+  "avalanche",
+  "solana"
+]

removedInput schema / properties / network / title
```
Removed value: -"Network"
```

addedInput schema / properties / recipient / description

Added value: +"Expected recipient: EVM 0x address or Solana owner wallet, not a token account."

addedInput schema / properties / recipient / maxLength
```
Added value: +44
```
addedInput schema / properties / recipient / minLength
```
Added value: +32
```

addedInput schema / properties / recipient / pattern

Added value: +"^(?:0x[0-9a-fA-F]{40}|[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{32,44})$"

removedInput schema / properties / recipient / title
```
Removed value: -"Recipient"
```

addedInput schema / properties / tx_hash / description

Added value: +"Public transaction to inspect: 0x plus 64 hex characters for EVM; base58 64-byte Solana signature. Must match network."

addedInput schema / properties / tx_hash / maxLength
```
Added value: +100
```
addedInput schema / properties / tx_hash / minLength
```
Added value: +64
```

addedInput schema / properties / tx_hash / pattern

Added value: +"^(?:0x[0-9a-fA-F]{64}|[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{64,88})$"

removedInput schema / properties / tx_hash / title
```
Removed value: -"Tx Hash"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"match_native_usdc_paymentArguments"

First observedOct 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: chain-specific finality checks, an explicit 'does not send funds or create an invoice' side-effect disclaimer, and the x402 v2 cost of 0.03 USDC with the payment rail (native USDC on Base/Solana). The cost and payment mechanism are exactly the kind of behavior 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences ordered purpose -> routing -> constraints/cost, with zero filler. The cost and non-mutation disclaimer are placed last where they belong, and no clause is redundant with another.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never states what a successful confirmation returns (a match verdict, extracted sender/amount, an evidence reference) or how a mismatch is reported. Everything an agent needs in order to call it correctly is present, but the result contract is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter, including the `network` enum and its default, is fully documented in the schema. The description restates the three required inputs ('Requires tx_hash, recipient and amount') and hints at the six-decimal precision, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Confirm an exact native Circle USDC recipient and six-decimal transfer amount for a completed transaction.' It scopes the chains (EVM or Solana) and explicitly names the two siblings it is not (verify_native_usdc, usdc_transfer_evidence_pdf), so an agent can route 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('reconciling a payment with an expected wallet and amount') plus two named alternatives with the selection criteria that favor them (inspect without expected values -> verify_native_usdc; PDF output -> usdc_transfer_evidence_pdf). No inference required.

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

All Skavio USDC Payment Verification & Proof MCP 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.

Match exact USDC recipient and amount

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

Resources