gblin-treasury-risk-regime

payments.verify

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a signed GBLIN authorization against the chain before spending gas on it. Recovers the signer from the EIP-712 digest (and asks the wallet itself through ERC-1271 when the payer is a contract), then checks the validity window against on-chain time, whether the nonce has already been used or cancelled, and whether the payer still holds the amount. Returns a verdict and the ready calldata when it would settle, the failing reason when it would not. This is the same set of checks an x402 facilitator runs, so a 'would_settle' verdict here means the payment is good to carry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`method`	No	Which method the signature was produced for. Default 'receive'.
`signature`	Yes	The signature produced by the payer's wallet, 0x-prefixed.
`authorization`	Yes	The authorization object: from, to, value, validAfter, validBefore, nonce.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`amount`	No
`checks`	Yes
`digest`	No
`method`	Yes
`source`	No
`submit`	No	Calldata and who may submit it, or null when it would not settle.
`failures`	Yes	Reasons it would not settle; empty when it would.
`would_settle`	Yes	True only if the token would accept this authorization now.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the full verification pipeline: EIP-712 signer recovery, ERC-1271 for contract payers, validity-window/nonce/balance checks, and the return semantics. Annotations already mark the operation read-only and idempotent, and the description adds rich behavioral detail without contradicting them.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, internal checks, return behavior, and operational significance. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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?

For a complex verification tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete: it covers what is checked, what is returned, and what the result means in the x402 flow. Nothing critical for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents authorization, signature, and method. The description adds behavioral context about the digest and signer recovery, but it does not add separate parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check a signed GBLIN authorization against the chain before spending gas on it.' It distinguishes itself from payment lifecycle siblings by focusing on verification rather than preparation or relay, and it explicitly describes the verdict/calldata outcome.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: run this before spending gas, and a 'would_settle' verdict means the payment is good to carry. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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

All gblin-treasury-risk-regime 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.