Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Plumb Data Exchange

by io.github.Mlcharle518
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

try_verify_payment

Free: the same verification as verify_payment, limited to 3 NEW claims per client per day (asking again about a claim already checked is always free). Holders of the exchange's on-ledger ProvenPayer credential get more: pass xrplProof (see credential_status).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoChain of the paymentbase
payeeYesAddress that should have received the money (XRPL: an r... account)
payerNoOnly count transfers from this address (the token holder who paid)
tokenNoERC-20 contract (default: USDC on the chain). XRPL: RLUSD (default), XRP, or CURRENCY.rIssuer
txHashYesTransaction hash (0x + 64 hex; XRPL: 64 hex)
logIndexNoBind to one transfer: its position within the tx's logs
invoiceIdNoXRPL only: the InvoiceID (64 hex) the payment must carry; binds the answer and its signed receipt to your invoice
xrplProofNo
minAmountRawNoMinimum amount in base units, e.g. "50000" = 0.05 USDC (default: any). XRPL: XRP drops, or millionths of an issued currency
requiredLevelNoProof level you need before releasing money (Base: tee_attested < zk_proven < resolved; Ethereum: finalized; XRPL: unl_quorum). The answer then says whether it is releasable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / xrplProof
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "account": {
+      "pattern": "^r[1-9A-HJ-NP-Za-km-z]{24,34}$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "publicKey": {
+      "pattern": "^[0-9A-Fa-f]{66}$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "signature": {
+      "pattern": "^[0-9A-Fa-f]{64,160}$",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "timestamp": {
+      "minimum": 0,
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "account",
+    "publicKey",
+    "timestamp",
+    "signature"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / invoiceId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "XRPL only: the InvoiceID (64 hex) the payment must carry; binds the answer and its signed receipt to your invoice",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed7 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / chain / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "base",
-  "ethereum"
-]New value: +[
+  "base",
+  "ethereum",
+  "xrpl"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / minAmountRaw / description
      Previous value: -"Minimum amount in base units, e.g. \"50000\" = 0.05 USDC (default: any)"New value: +"Minimum amount in base units, e.g. \"50000\" = 0.05 USDC (default: any). XRPL: XRP drops, or millionths of an issued currency"
    • changedInput schema / properties / payee / description
      Previous value: -"Address that should have received the money"New value: +"Address that should have received the money (XRPL: an r... account)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / requiredLevel / description
      Previous value: -"Proof level you need before releasing money (Base: tee_attested < zk_proven < resolved; Ethereum: finalized). The answer then says whether it is releasable."New value: +"Proof level you need before releasing money (Base: tee_attested < zk_proven < resolved; Ethereum: finalized; XRPL: unl_quorum). The answer then says whether it is releasable."
    • changedInput schema / properties / requiredLevel / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "tee_attested",
-  "zk_proven",
-  "resolved",
-  "finalized"
-]New value: +[
+  "tee_attested",
+  "zk_proven",
+  "resolved",
+  "finalized",
+  "unl_quorum"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / token / description
      Previous value: -"ERC-20 contract (default: USDC on the chain)"New value: +"ERC-20 contract (default: USDC on the chain). XRPL: RLUSD (default), XRP, or CURRENCY.rIssuer"
    • changedInput schema / properties / txHash / description
      Previous value: -"Transaction hash (0x + 64 hex)"New value: +"Transaction hash (0x + 64 hex; XRPL: 64 hex)"
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / requiredLevel
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Proof level you need before releasing money (Base: tee_attested < zk_proven < resolved; Ethereum: finalized). The answer then says whether it is releasable.",
+  "enum": [
+    "tee_attested",
+    "zk_proven",
+    "resolved",
+    "finalized"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully: it discloses a concrete rate limit (3 new claims per client per day), a free re-query carve-out, and a credential-gated higher tier. It does not describe the response format or receipt/auth requirements for the proof path, but the quota and pricing behavior is genuinely beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the key differentiator ('Free:') and the quota constraint before the credential upsell. Every clause earns its place; only minor compression is possible.

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?

For a 10-parameter tool with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers pricing/quota and the proof path but says nothing about return values or the signed-receipt behavior, deferring entirely to 'the same verification as verify_payment.' That deferral only works if the agent already knows the sibling, leaving a real gap.

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 90%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks for xrplProof: it explains why/when to pass it (ProvenPayer credential holders) and points to credential_status. The remaining parameters are already well documented in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('verification') and immediately anchors it to its sibling: 'the same verification as verify_payment.' The pricing/quota qualifier ('Free', 'limited to 3 NEW claims') makes it instantly distinguishable from verify_payment without opening either 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?

Clearly signals when this tool is the right pick (free tier, re-checks always free) and routes credential holders to the xrplProof path with a cross-reference to credential_status. It stops short of explicitly stating the alternative condition (e.g. 'use verify_payment when you exceed the daily quota'), leaving that to inference.

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

All Plumb Data Exchange 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