Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Skavio USDC Payment Verification & Proof MCP

by eu.skavio
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Verify native USDC transaction

verify_native_usdc
Read-only

Inspect a completed native Circle USDC transfer by transaction hash on a supported chain (Base, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, Ethereum, Avalanche or Solana). Use for transaction evidence; use match_native_usdc_payment to require an exact recipient and six-decimal amount, or usdc_transfer_evidence_pdf to obtain a PDF. This call does not initiate transfers or establish payment to a particular invoice. Costs 0.02 USDC via x402 v2; the paid MCP accepts Base or Solana USDC subject to wallet approval. Public-chain RPC finality and availability vary.

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: -"verify_native_usdcArguments"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/non-destructive status, but the description adds information the annotations cannot convey: a 0.02 USDC x402 v2 charge, accepted payment chains and wallet approval, and the caveat that RPC finality and availability vary. The 'does not initiate transfers' line is consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Purpose leads, then alternatives, then cost and caveats, which is the right front-loading. It is four dense sentences with almost no filler, though the pricing and wallet-approval clause is compressed enough that it may need a second read.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only inspection tool, most of what an agent needs is present: scope, routing, cost, and exclusions. The one gap is that no output schema exists, and 'use for transaction evidence' never says what evidence fields come back, so the agent must call it to learn the response shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description earns one step above that by listing the chains and by pre-empting the confusing case where the inspected network differs from the chain the API fee settles on, which is the one place the schema note is easy to miss.

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?

The description states a specific verb (inspect) and resource (a completed native Circle USDC transfer, identified by tx hash), then enumerates the supported chains. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the two sibling tools that touch the same data (match_native_usdc_payment, usdc_transfer_evidence_pdf).

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?

It explicitly names both alternatives and the conditions that select each: match when you need an exact recipient and six-decimal amount, and the PDF tool when you need a document. It also states the negative case ('does not initiate transfers or establish payment to a particular invoice'), which is exactly the misunderstanding an agent could have in this domain.

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