Skip to main content
Glama

groundcheck

by io.github.beepboop2025

Attest an x402 delivery

attest_delivery
Read-onlyIdempotent

PURPOSE: Neutral delivery verification for agentic commerce. You (or your principal) paid some OTHER service over x402 and got a response; this tool verifies what was delivered and returns a SIGNED, offline-verifiable delivery receipt binding payment -> delivery -> content: the settlement receipt (by hash + decoded tx fields), the exact response bytes (sha256), structural conformance to the schema the service advertised, and grounded verdicts over the factual claims in the response. Returns delivery_verdict (consistent | degraded | inconsistent | unverifiable) with a rationale. GUIDELINES: Call AFTER a paid third-party call whose output you will act on or account for — data enrichment you bought, research you commissioned, any x402 purchase your principal will audit. Branch on delivery_verdict: 'consistent' -> proceed; 'degraded' -> use with caution, flag the refuted claims; 'inconsistent' -> do not rely on the delivery, keep the receipt as dispute evidence; 'unverifiable' -> nothing contradicted but nothing confirmed. Save the full response JSON — it is a self-contained dispute artifact verifiable offline months later (GET /attest/pubkey documents how). PARAMETERS: service — URL/name of the paid service. response_text — the delivered payload, verbatim. request_text (optional) — what was asked. payment_receipt (optional) — the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE value from the paid call. advertised_schema (optional) — the JSON schema the service advertised. max_claims — 1..20, default 8. LIMITATIONS: Judges CONSISTENCY (as-advertised, not contradicted), never service quality. Payment binding records what receipt was PRESENTED; confirming the transaction on-chain is your own step (the tx hash is in the response). Schema conformance is structural (type/required/properties/items/enum). Content checking has the same source-coverage limits as verify_claim. Paid per call (x402). EXAMPLE: attest_delivery({"service": "https://api.vendor.xyz/enrich", "response_text": "{"name": "APPLE INC"}", "payment_receipt": "", "advertised_schema": {"type": "object", "required": ["name"]}}) -> {delivery_verdict: 'consistent', payment: {bound: true, transaction: '0x…'}, attestation: {…}}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceYesURL (or name) of the paid service whose delivery is being verified.
max_claimsNoMax claims in the delivered content to ground (1-20).
request_textNoWhat was asked of the service (optional; bound by hash when given).
response_textYesThe delivered payload, verbatim (JSON or prose).
payment_receiptNox402 settlement receipt from the paid call (X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE / PAYMENT-RESPONSE value, base64 or raw JSON).
advertised_schemaNoJSON schema the service advertised for its output (from its 402 offer or Bazaar listing).

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: returns a signed offline-verifiable receipt, binds payment to delivery to content via hashes, includes structural conformance and grounded verdicts, and is paid per call. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (PURPOSE, GUIDELINES, PARAMETERS, LIMITATIONS, EXAMPLE). However, the PARAMETERS section largely duplicates the input schema descriptions, adding minor redundancy. Otherwise efficient for a complex tool.

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?

The tool is complex (6 params, no output schema) but the description covers return values (delivery_verdict with options), rationale, example output, payment binding semantics, schema conformance scope, and content-checking limits. It provides enough to select and invoke correctly, and to interpret the result.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying payment_receipt as X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE value in base64/raw JSON, advertised_schema from 402 offer/Bazaar listing, and request_text bound by hash when given. The example illustrates parameter combinations, though the PARAMETERS section largely repeats schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's unique function: verifies what was delivered by an x402 paid service and returns a signed receipt with verdicts. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on delivery attestation rather than content verification, while referencing verify_claim for source-coverage limits.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit guidelines: call after a paid third-party call whose output will be acted on or accounted for. Lists branching actions for each verdict (consistent/degraded/inconsistent/unverifiable). Mentions on-chain confirmation as a separate step and notes consistency-vs-quality limitations, implying alternatives like verify_claim for claim-level verification.

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

All groundcheck toolsInspect
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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: claim verification (single vs batch), claim extraction, identifier resolution, and delivery attestation. The batch vs single claim tools are distinguished by input granularity, resolving any potential confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (attest_delivery, check_citations, extract_claims, resolve_instrument, verify_claim). This predictable convention makes the tool set easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for a verification/attestation service. Each tool covers a distinct stage (extract, verify, attest, resolve) without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides complete coverage of the verification workflow: extraction (extract_claims), single and batch verification (verify_claim, check_citations), identifier resolution (resolve_instrument), and delivery attestation (attest_delivery). Signed receipts enable offline verification, leaving no obvious gaps.

Resources