Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Plumb Data Exchange

by io.github.Mlcharle518
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

verify_payments_batch

Verify up to 25 payments in one call for $0.25 ($0.05 when every claim is on the XRP Ledger) USDC (x402): give claims (same fields as verify_payment) or csv (header: chain,txHash,payee,token,minAmountRaw,payer,logIndex,invoiceId). Claims already checked cost nothing; if all of them were, nothing is charged. Returns one row per claim (format "csv" adds a reconciliation CSV).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
csvNo
claimsNo
formatNo
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. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
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 well: it discloses the x402/USDC payment model, exact pricing tiers, a caching rule (already-checked claims are free), and the return shape (one row per claim). It omits error/partial-failure behavior and any rate or size limits beyond the 25-claim cap.

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 dense single paragraph that front-loads cost and capacity before inputs and outputs. Every sentence adds information, though the pricing parenthetical is slightly awkward to parse.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns and does ('one row per claim', plus reconciliation CSV). Inputs, pricing, and return shape are covered; missing only failure-mode behavior and guidance on choosing between the batch and single-claim siblings.

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 only 25% (only requiredLevel is documented), but the description compensates substantially: it gives the exact CSV header order for `csv` and equates `claims` to verify_payment's fields, and explains that `format=csv` adds a reconciliation CSV. Only the requiredLevel proof-level interaction is left entirely to 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 and resource with scope: 'Verify up to 25 payments in one call.' It distinguishes itself from the single-payment sibling by referencing 'same fields as verify_payment', so an agent can see this is the batch variant 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Batching and cost signals ('already checked cost nothing; if all of them were, nothing is charged') imply when this is economical, but the description never explicitly says to prefer this over verify_payment for multiple claims or when to fall back to the single-call tool. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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