SqueezeOS — Institutional AI Market Intelligence

X402 Evidence

x402_evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read real settlement evidence recorded by the canonical x402 rail. Use this when an agent or auditor needs proof that a past payment actually settled in USDC on Base; a challenge or signature alone is never treated as revenue or settlement proof. Returns recorded settlement receipts. Read-only and idempotent; no side effects. On error, returns a structured error. For example, pull evidence for a disputed charge before deciding a refund.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	No	Whether the upstream HTTP status is 2xx; not settlement proof.
`body`	No	Unmodified upstream JSON, or bounded response text. Consult that capability's live schema.
`error`	No
`charged`	No	Present on local/transport failures; these do not establish an upstream charge.
`message`	No
`auto_spent`	No
`status_code`	No	Observed upstream HTTP status, or null when no response was obtained.
`substituted`	No
`content_type`	No
`payment_required`	No	Observed PAYMENT-REQUIRED header; a challenge does not prove payment.
`payment_response`	No	Observed PAYMENT-RESPONSE header. Assess it together with accepted delivery.
`caller_supplied_authorization`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 14, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "ok",
+        "status_code"
+      ]
+    },
+    {
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    }
+  ],
+  "description": "Canonical REST response envelope, or a local/transport rejection. Upstream data remains in body and is defined by the live capability schema.",
+  "properties": {
+    "auto_spent": {
+      "const": false
+    },
+    "body": {
+      "description": "Unmodified upstream JSON, or bounded response text. Consult that capability's live schema."
+    },
+    "caller_supplied_authorization": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "charged": {
+      "const": false,
+      "description": "Present on local/transport failures; these do not establish an upstream charge."
+    },
+    "content_type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Whether the upstream HTTP status is 2xx; not settlement proof.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "payment_required": {
+      "description": "Observed PAYMENT-REQUIRED header; a challenge does not prove payment.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "payment_response": {
+      "description": "Observed PAYMENT-RESPONSE header. Assess it together with accepted delivery.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status_code": {
+      "description": "Observed upstream HTTP status, or null when no response was obtained.",
+      "maximum": 599,
+      "minimum": 100,
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "substituted": {
+      "const": false
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedAug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the sentence 'Read-only and idempotent; no side effects' largely repeats structured data. What the description does add is domain behavior not in annotations: the rule that challenges/signatures are not settlement proof, and that errors return a structured error rather than failing opaquely.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavior, then example – good ordering with each sentence doing work except 'Read-only and idempotent; no side effects,' which duplicates the annotations. Overall five sentences for a zero-parameter tool is slightly generous but not padded.

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?

With 0 parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly stays out of that. It covers purpose, selection criteria, safety profile, and error behavior, leaving no material gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for. The only parameter-adjacent content is the example use case, which is contextual rather than semantic.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Read real settlement evidence recorded by the canonical x402 rail,' and explicitly defines what does NOT qualify ('a challenge or signature alone is never treated as revenue or settlement proof'). This scope boundary clearly separates it from siblings like x402_contract, x402_readiness, and aftersearch_verify_serp.

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?

It states a clear when-to-use: 'when an agent or auditor needs proof that a past payment actually settled in USDC on Base,' and gives a concrete scenario ('pull evidence for a disputed charge before deciding a refund'). It never names an alternative tool by name, so routing is implied rather than directive.

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

All SqueezeOS — Institutional AI Market Intelligence tools Inspect

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.