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.
    Next call confirm_invoice_payment with the wallet's broadcast signature.
    A 409 means expired/paid invoice. On blockhash expiry, check the old signature
    before preparing a replacement for the same invoice; never pay twice.

Input Schema

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint true and destructiveHint false, and the description is consistent with that (it does not sign, submit or activate). Beyond the annotations it discloses auth needs (bearer key), that no package/data credits are needed, the return artifacts (base64 legacy Solana transaction, last_valid_block_height), fee/rent requirements (USDC + SOL), the private-key custody guarantee, and 409/blockhash-expiry semantics.

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-loaded with the core purpose and then a logical progression of auth, return value, review step, signing/broadcast responsibility, and error handling. It is on the longer side for a single-parameter tool, but nearly every sentence carries operational guidance, so there is little waste.

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?

Covers purpose, preconditions, auth, return artifacts, the review step, who signs/broadcasts, error semantics, and the follow-up call. Even though an output schema exists, the description supplies the workflow context an agent needs to invoke this costly-to-get-wrong transaction step safely.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents invoice_id (pattern, example, and 'not a swap id or signature'). The description adds invoice-level preconditions (must be unpaid and unexpired) but no additional syntax or format meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 (Prepare) plus resource (unsigned USDC payment for an invoice) and scopes it to 'existing unpaid, unexpired invoice.' It differentiates from siblings by naming get_invoice_status and confirm_invoice_payment and clarifying that it neither signs, submits, nor activates the package.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not: only for existing unpaid/unexpired invoices, next call confirm_invoice_payment with the broadcast signature, and a 409 means expired/paid. It also routes the agent to get_invoice_status for review and gives a handling rule for blockhash expiry to avoid double payment.

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.