PumpView — Solana Trading & Live Data

prepare_invoice_payment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Prepare an unsigned USDC payment for an existing unpaid, unexpired invoice.

    Bearer key required; no package or data credits needed. Returns a base64
    legacy Solana transaction and last_valid_block_height. Review it against
    get_invoice_status: payer, recipient, mint, amount and pumpview:<id> memo.
    Your authorized wallet signs and broadcasts locally, using USDC plus SOL
    for network fees and possible token-account rent. PumpView never receives
    the private key. This tool does not sign, submit or activate the package.
    Wallets may add compute-budget or guard instructions, changing the signature.
    Next call confirm_invoice_payment with the signature the wallet broadcast.
    A 409 means expired/paid invoice; 422 means the payer wallet lacks the USDC.
    On blockhash expiry, check the old signature
    before preparing a replacement for the same invoice; never pay twice.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`invoice_id`	Yes	Invoice id returned by get_payment_instructions for this API-key account. Not a swap id or Solana transaction signature.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`transaction_base64`	Yes	Unsigned legacy Solana transaction. Review payer, recipient, exact USDC amount and invoice memo before local wallet signing and broadcast. Never submit through submit_swap.
`last_valid_block_height`	Yes	Block-height expiry of this transaction. Invoice expiry must also be respected. After expiry, check the prior signature before preparing another payment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: Bearer key required, returns a base64 legacy Solana transaction and last_valid_block_height, does not sign/submit/activate, the wallet signs and broadcasts locally, PumpView never receives the private key, and wallets may alter the signature. It also documents 409 and 422 responses and a double-payment warning.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by operational details in a logical order: auth, return value, verification, signing model, limitations, next call, errors, and expiry safety. Despite its length, every sentence carries actionable information for correct invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers authentication, return payload, safety model, wallet responsibilities, next-step tool, error handling, and the blockhash expiry caution. With an output schema and rich annotations also present, the definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke and follow up correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that invoice_id comes from get_payment_instructions and is not a swap id or transaction signature. The description does not add further parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: prepare an unsigned USDC payment for an existing unpaid, unexpired invoice. It clearly distinguishes the tool from signing/broadcasting and from sibling tools like confirm_invoice_payment and get_invoice_status.

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?

Usage is explicit: call this for an existing unpaid, unexpired invoice, review against get_invoice_status, then call confirm_invoice_payment with the broadcast signature. It also names alternatives and edge conditions, including checking the old signature before preparing a replacement after blockhash expiry.

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

All PumpView — Solana Trading & Live Data 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.