code402

Create B2B contractor invoice

create_b2b_invoice

Read-onlyIdempotent

Create a merchant-direct Base token invoice. New automated payments require a durable EOA authorization journal and a configured provider. No active protocol fee; no generic bank-wire authority, independent delivery or contract-wallet guarantee.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "memo": "Sprint #14 Milestones",
      "merchant": "0xc59c85e661d34084a7769f955d17fd38254a6235",
      "amount_usdc": 50000,
      "client_name": "Apex AI"
    },
    "name": "create_b2b_invoice"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`memo`	No	Engagement scope / milestone description (optional).
`merchant`	Yes	Beneficiary contractor Base EVM wallet address (0x...).
`referrer`	No	Optional attribution reference. Referral payouts and protocol fees are not active.
`amount_usdc`	Yes	Invoice total in USDC (e.g. 50000).
`client_name`	No	Client enterprise organization name (optional).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`scope`	No
`valid`	Yes
`status`	No
`pay_url`	Yes
`merchant`	No
`cart_hash`	No
`invoice_id`	Yes
`amount_usdc`	No
`invoice_url`	Yes
`protocol_fee_usdc`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true while the description's core verb is "Create" and references "automated payments" — a direct write-vs-read contradiction. The trailing negations ("no generic bank-wire authority, independent delivery or contract-wallet guarantee") add confusion rather than disclosing what actually happens on invocation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the two following sentences are dense, unparsable negations that consume space without conveying actionable information. Roughly half the text is noise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a creation/mutation tool the description never explains what is produced (even though an output schema exists, the effect of creating the invoice is unclear) or what "authorization journal" and "configured provider" mean operationally. Combined with the read/write contradiction, an agent cannot confidently invoke it.

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%, so merchant, amount_usdc, memo, referrer and client_name are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no field-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

First sentence gives a specific verb+resource: "Create a merchant-direct Base token invoice," which distinguishes it from the sibling get_b2b_invoice. The remaining sentences drift into opaque protocol jargon rather than reinforcing the purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives. The phrase "require a durable EOA authorization journal and a configured provider" hints at prerequisites but is too cryptic for an agent to act on or to know how to satisfy them.

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

All code402 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.