Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DebitMyData Agentic Superhighway

by io.debitmydata
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Register the DID-LLM

dmd_register_did
Idempotent

Issue the DID-LLM once the payment is settled and the controller proof is verified. Returns the DID-LLM, its DID-LLM document URL, the signed credential (the receipt) and the entitlements. Calling it again returns the same DID-LLM.

    x402 quotes (USDC on Base): prove control first, then call this tool. It fails
    with the x402 payment requirements; sign them with your wallet and call it again
    with x402_payment. The DID-LLM is issued once the payment is settled on chain.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "registration_intent_id": "<registration_intent_id>"
    },
    "name": "dmd_register_did"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
x402_paymentNox402 quotes only: your signed PaymentPayload (x402 version 2) answering the payment requirements this tool returned. It may also be sent in the request's _meta['x402/payment'].
registration_intent_idYesregistration_intent_id from the quote (dmd_did_intent_...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the intentional-failure handshake (fails with x402 payment requirements, retried with a signed payload), the on-chain settlement gate, and the idempotent replay behavior with specifics ('calling it again returns the same DID-LLM'). Annotations only flag idempotentHint/destructiveHint at a coarse level; the description supplies the actual payment/auth mechanics.

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 action and its return values, then the payment flow. Slight redundancy between 'once the payment is settled' and the closing 'issued once the payment is settled on chain', which could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return payload (DID-LLM, document URL, signed credential, entitlements). Combined with the prerequisite ordering, failure/retry semantics and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: x402_payment is only relevant on the second call and is the signed answer to requirements the tool itself returned, and registration_intent_id comes from the prior quote. That explains the lifecycle of both parameters rather than restating the schema.

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 ('Issue the DID-LLM') and pins down the two preconditions: payment settled and controller proof verified. That separates it cleanly from sibling quote/status/prove tools without needing to name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit ordered workflow — prove control first, then call, expect payment requirements, sign, retry with x402_payment — which is exactly the when-to-use context an agent needs. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (e.g. dmd_prove_wallet_control) or stating any when-not condition, so it is clear but not fully routed.

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

All DebitMyData Agentic Superhighway 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