Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Skavio USDC Payment Verification & Proof MCP

by eu.skavio
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

USDC blockchain transfer evidence PDF

usdc_transfer_evidence_pdf
Read-only

Generate a bounded base64-encoded PDF containing publicly verifiable native Circle USDC transaction evidence for an existing on-chain transfer. Use when a customer or accountant needs a downloadable blockchain proof, not when you need a machine-readable exact recipient and amount check (use match_native_usdc_payment) or a simple transaction lookup (use verify_native_usdc). The PDF is not an invoice, tax receipt or authorization. No custody or transfers. Costs 0.05 USDC via x402 v2 on Base or Solana MCP.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
networkNoBlockchain inspected; the separate API payment always settles native USDC on Base.base
tx_hashYesPublic transaction to inspect: 0x plus 64 hex characters for EVM; base58 64-byte Solana signature. Must match network.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed10 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • 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 / 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: -"usdc_transfer_evidence_pdfArguments"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new context: the 0.05 USDC x402 v2 payment on Base or Solana, that the PDF is not an invoice/tax receipt/authorization, and that no custody or transfers occur. It does not disclose retry/idempotency behavior despite idempotentHint=false (a repeat call presumably re-charges), which keeps this short of a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the exclusions before the disclaimers and pricing, and every sentence carries real information. Slightly long with the trailing payment-settlement sentence, but dense rather than 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return shape and does state it is a bounded base64-encoded PDF. It covers scope limits, pricing, and exclusions. The word 'bounded' is not quantified (no size/token ceiling stated), which is the main residual gap for an agent that must handle the returned payload.

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%, including the tx_hash format pattern and the network enum with its payment-vs-inspection note, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about parameter format or defaults beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (generate) and a specific artifact (base64-encoded PDF of native Circle USDC transaction evidence for an existing on-chain transfer). It explicitly names the two sibling tools it is not (match_native_usdc_payment, verify_native_usdc), 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-use ('customer or accountant needs a downloadable blockchain proof') and when-not with named alternatives for each exclusion (machine-readable exact check -> match_native_usdc_payment; simple lookup -> verify_native_usdc). Nothing is left to inference.

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 toolsInspect
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