Agent Decision & Evidence Tools (MCP + x402)

Verify a compliance receipt (free)

verify_compliance_receipt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Anyone can verify issuer authenticity, integrity and the signed validity window of a eucompliance.tools result locally without payment or network access; this does not validate the underlying facts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_json`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	No
`error`	No
`price`	No	No payment is required for this tool.
`valid`	No
`charged`	No	When present on an error, false means the failed result is uncharged.
`expired`	No
`message`	No
`missing`	No
`reasons`	No
`service`	No
`settled`	No	When present on an error, false means no settlement occurred.
`subject`	No
`unknown`	No
`accepted`	No
`failures`	No
`issued_at`	No
`retryable`	No
`checked_at`	No
`error_code`	No
`status_code`	No
`valid_until`	No
`did_you_mean`	No
`issued_by_us`	No
`missing_checks`	No
`signature_valid`	No
`partial_evidence`	No
`recovered_signer`	No
`content_unchanged`	No
`official_issuer_key`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedSep 6, 2026

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
addedInput schema / properties / document_json / minLength
```
Added value: +2
```
removedInput schema / properties / document_json / title
```
Removed value: -"Document Json"
```

removedInput schema / title

Removed value: -"verify_receipt_toolArguments"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "valid",
+        "reasons",
+        "failures",
+        "price"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Structured result contract for verify_compliance_receipt. A success satisfies the documented success branch. A domain or tool error includes error and is not a successful settlement; unpaid x402 requirements are carried by the transport wrapper.",
+  "properties": {
+    "accepted": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "charged": {
+      "description": "When present on an error, false means the failed result is uncharged.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "checked_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "content_unchanged": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "did_you_mean": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "oneOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": true,
+          "properties": {
+            "code": {
+              "type": [
+                "string",
+                "null"
+              ]
+            },
+            "message": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "param": {
+              "type": [
+                "string",
+                "null"
+              ]
+            },
+            "type": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "message"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "error_code": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "expired": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "failures": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "issued_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issued_by_us": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "missing": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "missing_checks": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "official_issuer_key": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "partial_evidence": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "price": {
+      "const": "free",
+      "description": "No payment is required for this tool.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reasons": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "recovered_signer": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "retryable": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "service": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "settled": {
+      "description": "When present on an error, false means no settlement occurred.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "signature_valid": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "status_code": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "subject": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "tool": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "unknown": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "valid": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "valid_until": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedJul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: verification is local, works without payment or network access, and is limited to authenticity/integrity/validity-window checks rather than substantive fact-checking. This meaningfully informs an agent's expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The entire definition is one focused sentence that front-loads the core capability, then adds the key limitation. Every clause carries useful information and there is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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 single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, network behavior, and an important limitation. However, the near-total absence of guidance on how to supply document_json is a real gap, so an agent has to infer the input format from the parameter name and the phrase 'eucompliance.tools result'.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has one parameter, document_json, with 0% coverage from schema descriptions, and the description only indirectly suggests it should be a eucompliance.tools result. It does not explain the expected JSON structure, how the document should be serialized, or what minimal content is required beyond a 2-character string. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('verify') with a clear object ('compliance receipt' / 'eucompliance.tools result') and defines the precise scope: issuer authenticity, integrity, and the signed validity window. It also separates itself from fact-checking tools by explicitly stating it does not validate underlying facts. This gives an agent enough to distinguish it from sibling validation tools like validate_vat or validate_einvoice_eu.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: anyone can verify a receipt locally, free, and without network access. It also provides a when-not signal by stating the tool does not validate underlying facts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say which sibling should be used when fact validation is needed.

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

All Agent Decision & Evidence Tools (MCP + x402) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.