Skip to main content
Glama

Receipts batch (paid, x402; preview free)

receipts_batch

PAID (x402 or CSOAI LTD invoice). A historical batch of the estate's measurement receipts via https://councilof.ai/api/receipts/batch: every signed card-v0 leaf whose as_of falls in [from,to] (≤200), each with its Merkle inclusion path and the public root(s) that carried it, plus the root index for the window and one signed manifest card citing the batch sha256. preview=true is free and returns count, span, root count and the sha256 of the exact bytes the paid call returns. Recent leaves are free at /root.json, /cards/ and /api/proof?sha= — the batch sells assembly across history, never a conclusion. No settlement-receipt stream exists (/api/receipts/latest is UNPUBLISHED) and this tool never claims one. Without x_payment the tool returns the 402 challenge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoWindow end, ISO-8601. Defaults to now.
fromYesWindow start, ISO-8601. Required.
previewNotrue = free: count, span, roots and batch sha256 without the leaves.
x_paymentNoThe X-PAYMENT header value signed against accepts[] from the previous 402. Omit to receive the challenge.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNo
routeNo
statusYesPAYMENT_REQUIRED, DELIVERED, NOT_DEPLOYED, UNREACHABLE, UNREADABLE_RESPONSE, BAD_ARGUMENTS or HTTP_<code>
acceptsNo
resourceNo
deliverableNo
http_statusNo
x402VersionNo
delivery_stateNo
settlement_stateNo
payment_presentedNo
not_a_certificationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "description": "The wrapper's status fields. On PAYMENT_REQUIRED (isError:true) the route's x402 PaymentRequired object (x402Version, resource, accepts, extensions) is spread at the top level too, per the x402 MCP transport.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "accepts": {
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "deliverable": {},
      +    "delivery_state": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "http_status": {
      +      "type": "integer"
      +    },
      +    "not_a_certification": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "payment_presented": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "resource": {
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "route": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "settlement_state": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "status": {
      +      "description": "PAYMENT_REQUIRED, DELIVERED, NOT_DEPLOYED, UNREACHABLE, UNREADABLE_RESPONSE, BAD_ARGUMENTS or HTTP_<code>",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "tool": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "x402Version": {
      +      "type": "integer"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "status"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "description": "The wrapper's status fields. On PAYMENT_REQUIRED (isError:true) the route's x402 PaymentRequired object (x402Version, resource, accepts, extensions) is spread at the top level too, per the x402 MCP transport.",
      -  "properties": {
      -    "accepts": {
      -      "type": "array"
      -    },
      -    "deliverable": {},
      -    "delivery_state": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "http_status": {
      -      "type": "integer"
      -    },
      -    "not_a_certification": {
      -      "type": "boolean"
      -    },
      -    "payment_presented": {
      -      "type": "boolean"
      -    },
      -    "resource": {
      -      "type": "object"
      -    },
      -    "route": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "settlement_state": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "status": {
      -      "description": "PAYMENT_REQUIRED, DELIVERED, NOT_DEPLOYED, UNREACHABLE, UNREADABLE_RESPONSE, BAD_ARGUMENTS or HTTP_<code>",
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "tool": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    },
      -    "x402Version": {
      -      "type": "integer"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "required": [
      -    "status"
      -  ],
      -  "type": "object"
      -}New value: +null
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "description": "The wrapper's status fields. On PAYMENT_REQUIRED (isError:true) the route's x402 PaymentRequired object (x402Version, resource, accepts, extensions) is spread at the top level too, per the x402 MCP transport.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "accepts": {
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "deliverable": {},
      +    "delivery_state": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "http_status": {
      +      "type": "integer"
      +    },
      +    "not_a_certification": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "payment_presented": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "resource": {
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "route": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "settlement_state": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "status": {
      +      "description": "PAYMENT_REQUIRED, DELIVERED, NOT_DEPLOYED, UNREACHABLE, UNREADABLE_RESPONSE, BAD_ARGUMENTS or HTTP_<code>",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "tool": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "x402Version": {
      +      "type": "integer"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "status"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals payment behavior, the 402 challenge, the preview mode, the exact sha256 preview, and the fact that the batch covers up to 200 leaves. It also discloses that the tool never claims a settlement-receipt stream, which is important context not available from 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?

The description is dense but information-rich, and it front-loads the payment requirement and historical nature. It is a single paragraph and includes a slightly metaphorical phrase, but every sentence contributes meaningful operational guidance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity—paid access, x402 flow, preview mode, output structure, and archival scope—the description covers all essential aspects. It explains preconditions, return contents, free alternatives, limitations, and explicitly warns against misinterpreting the batch as a settlement stream.

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: from/to are window bounds against leaf as_of, preview=true returns count/span/root count/batch sha256, and x_payment is the signed header from the previous 402 challenge. This goes beyond the raw schema descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a historical batch of estate measurement receipts for a given [from,to] window, with inclusion paths and root information. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying recent leaves are free elsewhere and that the batch sells assembly across history, not a conclusion.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use the paid batch versus free alternatives: preview=true is free and summarizes the call, while recent leaves are free via /root.json, /cards/, and /api/proof. It also states that without x_payment the tool returns the 402 challenge, and clarifies that no settlement-receipt stream exists.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources