PrivateDAO Agent Exchange

PrivateDAO Receipt Verification

verify_receipt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify an asset/record or retrieve and validate a PrivateDAO receipt. Returns structured evidence and hashes; it is free and read-only, never pays or executes work, and replaces the separate basic, receipt, and get-receipt paths.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mint`	No	Solana mint for basic verification.
`mode`	No	Use basic for an asset/record check or receipt for an existing receipt.	receipt
`asset`	No	Alias for mint.
`record`	No	Structured record for basic verification.
`network`	No	Optional network identifier for the asset or receipt evidence.
`receipt`	No	Receipt returned by a completed job.
`receipt_id`	No	Receipt identifier to retrieve and verify.
`expected_hash`	No	Optional result hash that must match the receipt evidence.
`expected_digest`	No	Optional digest that must match the canonical verified record.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	Operation status.
`receipt`	No	Public receipt metadata when retrieved.
`receipt_id`	No	Public receipt identifier when available.
`result_hash`	No	Verified result hash when available.
`evidence_hash`	No	Canonical evidence hash when available.
`verification_status`	No	Verification result when evidence is accepted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / expected_digest / description

Added value: +"Optional digest that must match the canonical verified record."

addedInput schema / properties / expected_hash / description

Added value: +"Optional result hash that must match the receipt evidence."

addedInput schema / properties / network / description

Added value: +"Optional network identifier for the asset or receipt evidence."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Read-only verification evidence or a public receipt.",
+  "properties": {
+    "evidence_hash": {
+      "description": "Canonical evidence hash when available.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "receipt": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Public receipt metadata when retrieved.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "receipt_id": {
+      "description": "Public receipt identifier when available.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "result_hash": {
+      "description": "Verified result hash when available.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Operation status.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verification_status": {
+      "description": "Verification result when evidence is accepted.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context -- that the call is free, never pays or executes work, and returns structured evidence and hashes -- but says nothing about failure modes when expected_hash/expected_digest mismatch or what an invalid receipt yields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verification action, and the negative constraint ('never pays or executes work') is placed where it matters. The trailing clause about replacing legacy paths is useful but slightly compresses three ideas into one sentence.

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?

A 9-parameter, nested-object, multi-mode tool with an output schema; the description conveys the mode split and the read-only/no-payment guarantee, which is the key disambiguation. Missing is how the mutually exclusive inputs (receipt_id vs receipt vs mint vs asset vs record) interact, which the anyOf schema implies but never states plainly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and each of the 9 parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline applies. The description's 'asset/record' versus 'receipt' phrasing mirrors the mode enum without adding syntax, precedence rules, or semantics for expected_hash/expected_digest beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource set ('Verify an asset/record or retrieve and validate a PrivateDAO receipt') and explicitly says it consolidates the old basic/receipt/get-receipt paths. It does not, however, address how it differs from the sibling privatepay_verify, which an agent could easily confuse with it.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to use this 'instead of separate basic, receipt, and get-receipt tools' and the schema mode enum distinguishes the two flows. It offers no when-not-to-use guidance or pointers to the privatepay_* verification siblings, so routing between them 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.

All PrivateDAO Agent Exchange 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.