Skip to main content
Glama

Human Pages

by io.github.human-pages-ai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

mark_job_paid

Record payment for an ACCEPTED job. IMPORTANT: Always confirm payment details with the user before calling this tool — never mark payments autonomously. Job must be in ACCEPTED status (use get_job_status to check). Crypto payments (usdc, eth, sol): provide tx hash + network → verified on-chain instantly, job moves to PAID. Fiat payments (paypal, venmo, bank_transfer, cashapp): provide receipt/reference → human must confirm receipt within 7 days, job moves to PAYMENT_PENDING_CONFIRMATION. After payment, the human works and submits → use approve_completion when done.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
job_idYesThe job ID
payment_amountYesThe amount paid in USD equivalent
payment_methodYesHow you paid the human. Crypto methods (usdc, eth, sol, other_crypto) are verified on-chain. Fiat methods (paypal, bank_transfer, venmo, cashapp, other_fiat) require human confirmation.
payment_networkNoBlockchain network (e.g., "base", "ethereum", "solana"). Required for crypto payments, ignored for fiat.
payment_referenceYesProof of payment. For crypto: the on-chain transaction hash. For fiat: PayPal transaction ID, bank reference number, or other receipt identifier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / payment_amount / description
      Previous value: -"The amount paid in USDC"New value: +"The amount paid in USD equivalent"
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_method
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How you paid the human. Crypto methods (usdc, eth, sol, other_crypto) are verified on-chain. Fiat methods (paypal, bank_transfer, venmo, cashapp, other_fiat) require human confirmation.",
+  "enum": [
+    "usdc",
+    "eth",
+    "sol",
+    "paypal",
+    "bank_transfer",
+    "venmo",
+    "cashapp",
+    "other_crypto",
+    "other_fiat"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / payment_network / description
      Previous value: -"The blockchain network (e.g., \"ethereum\", \"solana\")"New value: +"Blockchain network (e.g., \"base\", \"ethereum\", \"solana\"). Required for crypto payments, ignored for fiat."
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment_reference
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Proof of payment. For crypto: the on-chain transaction hash. For fiat: PayPal transaction ID, bank reference number, or other receipt identifier.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / payment_tx_hash
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "The on-chain transaction hash",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "job_id",
-  "payment_tx_hash",
-  "payment_network",
-  "payment_amount"
-]New value: +[
+  "job_id",
+  "payment_method",
+  "payment_reference",
+  "payment_amount"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels. It explains the two distinct payment paths (crypto vs fiat), the exact status transitions (PAID vs PAYMENT_PENDING_CONFIRMATION), the verification mechanism (on-chain instant vs human 7-day confirmation), and the requirement for user confirmation before operation. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 description is compact and well-structured. It leads with the core purpose, then a critical warning, followed by method-specific behavior and a forward pointer to the subsequent tool. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, and the use of bullets and bold/caps makes it scanable. Despite its length, it remains efficient for the complexity it covers.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers prerequisites, allowed job statuses, payment-method-specific flows, outcome statuses, and the next step in the workflow. It also includes an important human-in-the-loop guardrail. There are no significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for every field, providing a solid baseline. The description adds value by grouping payment_method into crypto/fiat categories and clarifying the relationship between payment_reference and payment_network for each path. While most parameter meanings are already in the schema, the description enriches the contextual semantics, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Record payment for an ACCEPTED job.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings like approve_completion by explaining the full payment workflow and when the next tool should be used. The focus on job payment with status transitions makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit usage conditions: the job must be in ACCEPTED status, and it directs the agent to check via get_job_status. It also specifies that payment details must be confirmed with the user before calling, and gives a clear alternative/next step: 'use approve_completion when done.' This fully covers when and how to use the tool versus alternatives.

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

All Human Pages toolsInspect
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.

Resources