Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

code402

by io.github.89rat
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

CSP-1 Confidential Terms Commitment & Stealth Announce

csp_commitment_create
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates cryptographic commitments to commercial terms and formats ERC-5564 dual-key stealth address announcements (CSP-1) for invoice-scale B2B payments on Base L2.

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": {
      "invoice_object": {
        "invoice_id": "INV-402",
        "line_items": [
          {
            "qty": 10,
            "sku": "H100_HR"
          }
        ],
        "amount_usdc": 5000
      }
    },
    "name": "csp_commitment_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
salt_hexNoOptional 32-byte salt (0x...). If omitted, cryptographically derived
view_tagNoOptional 1-byte hex view tag (0xNN)
invoice_objectYesStructured invoice or commercial agreement object to commit to
ephemeral_pubkeyNoOptional ephemeral public key for ERC-5564 announcement
stealth_recipientNoOptional Base L2 stealth recipient address for announcement

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
salt_hexYes
standardYes
announcementNo
canonical_jcsNo
invoice_commitmentYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and determinism profile is covered. The description does not clarify the one thing an agent would most worry about given the 'on Base L2' phrasing — that no announcement is actually broadcast and nothing is written on-chain, only formatted. That clarification would have added real value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key nouns (commitment, ERC-5564, stealth announcement, Base L2) appear early. It is dense with protocol jargon but every clause carries information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, so the description does not need to explain return values. What is missing is workflow context: when in the invoice lifecycle to invoke it and whether the announcement is merely serialized or transmitted, which matters for a tool that touches a public chain's namespace.

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%, with all five parameters individually documented including optionality and the fallback behavior for salt_hex. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the 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?

The description names specific verbs and resources ('generates cryptographic commitments', 'formats ERC-5564 dual-key stealth address announcements') and pins the domain to invoice-scale B2B payments on Base L2, which an agent can match against sibling tools like create_b2b_invoice or receipt_verify. It is clear what the tool produces, though it bundles two outputs (commitment + announcement) without saying whether they are returned together or are independent.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus create_b2b_invoice, receipt_verify, or iso20022_to_x402_intent, all of which sit in the same payment-workflow cluster. Nothing states prerequisites, whether the invoice must be finalized first, or what the caller does with the resulting commitment.

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

All code402 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