Skip to main content
Glama

Result validation check

wever_result-validation-check
Read-only

Agent Purchases: submit the order’s own terms for one paid call (the values it asked for, the fields a delivered result carries, what counts as delivered, how fresh the data must be and the fewest items that count) and the result that came back (HTTP status, its fields with their values, its item count, when its data was current, when it arrived and any error carried in its body). The signed report checks each term met, not met or unstated and names every failure: a non-2xx status, an error inside a success, a requested value the result carries differently, a required field it lacks, an empty or short result and stale data. A 200 response carrying the wrong data is reported as a silent failure, not a success. A job’s work against acceptance criteria is wever_deliverable-check and a result that never arrived after payment is wever_payment-recovery-check. Verdict silent_failure, order_not_met, validation_unverified or order_met. POST /api/result-validation-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-purchases-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-purchases/.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
orderYes
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, but the description goes further: it states that no network request, fetch, money movement, or external write occurs, discloses the 0.10 USDC x402 price and 10 free signed-wallet calls, explains the X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding, and says the output carries an Ed25519 signed receipt.

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 purpose is front-loaded and nearly every sentence carries operational information, including verdicts, endpoint, cost, and receipt format. The single dense paragraph and some run-on parentheticals make it harder to scan than it needs to be, but there is little obvious waste.

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?

For a nested three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies the verdict set, the failure taxonomy, the silent-failure rule, the read-only guarantee, payment and auth requirements, and the signed receipt. An agent has enough 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?

The schema documents most nested fields, but the description adds evaluation semantics the schema cannot: it treats order terms as claims to be checked as met, not met, or unstated, and frames result fields around status, item count, freshness, and in-body errors. That interpretation is valuable beyond the field descriptions, though some of the wording merely restates schema labels.

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: submit a paid call's order terms plus the returned result and get a signed validation report. It explicitly distinguishes itself from wever_deliverable-check (job acceptance criteria) and wever_payment-recovery-check (result never arrived), so an agent can route without opening another schema.

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 names the exact situation for this tool, the two sibling alternatives and the condition that selects each, and adds the transport details (POST /api/result-validation-check) plus the payment model. Very little is left to inference.

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.