Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

agent-tools (x402 + MCP + A2A directory)

by io.github.AgentTools-Cloud
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

execute_paid_verification

Destructive

Send the signed payment to the service once and score the result.

Aborts without paying if price or recipient changed. Never retried; a
timeout returns `indeterminate`. status: succeeded | delivery_failed |
payment_rejected | indeterminate.

Args:
    id: `id` returned by `prepare_paid_verification`.
    signature: 0x EIP-712 signature of its `typed_data` by the payer.
    api_key: Optional if the Authorization header is sent.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "execute_paid_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes`id` returned by `prepare_paid_verification`.
api_keyNoOptional if the Authorization header is sent.
signatureYes0x EIP-712 signature of its `typed_data` by the payer.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / api_key / description
      Added value: +"Optional if the Authorization header is sent."
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"`id` returned by `prepare_paid_verification`."
    • addedInput schema / properties / signature / description
      Added value: +"0x EIP-712 signature of its `typed_data` by the payer."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the safety valve (aborts without paying on price/recipient change), the no-retry policy, the timeout semantics (`indeterminate`), and the terminal status values. These are exactly the risk details an agent needs before triggering an irreversible payment flagged destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false.

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?

The behavior and status information is front-loaded in the first three sentences, which is the right ordering for a risky tool. The trailing Args block duplicates schema text verbatim and is the only wasted material in an otherwise tight description.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return shape needn't be explained, and the description covers prerequisites, abort behavior, and status semantics. The one loose phrase is 'score the result', which never clarifies what scoring means or whether it affects the payment outcome.

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 coverage is 100% and the Args block restates the schema descriptions verbatim, adding no new syntax or constraints. The one useful addition is the prepare→execute linkage already implied by the purpose sentence; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

Uses a specific verb and resource ('Send the signed payment to the service once and score the result') and implicitly positions itself as the second step after `prepare_paid_verification`, which it names explicitly as the source of `id`. An agent can distinguish it from `prepare_paid_verification` and from read-only siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Clear usage context: call it once, after obtaining `id` from `prepare_paid_verification`, and it will abort rather than pay if price or recipient changed. It does not name alternatives for checking the outcome afterwards (e.g., a sibling status-lookup tool), so it stops short of a full when/when-not + alternative map.

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

All agent-tools (x402 + MCP + A2A directory) toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources