Skip to main content
Glama

anchor-x402

by io.github.hypeprinter007-stack

ledger/report

ledger_report

Signed + dual-chain-anchored x402 expense report (markdown + CSV, async job). $0.35 USDC.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoISO date or datetime, end of range. Default: now.
fromNoISO date or datetime, start of range. Default: 30 days before `to`.
titleNoReport title; appears in the markdown header.
formatNoWhich report files to produce. Default both.both
walletYesEVM address (Base) whose x402 spend to reconstruct.
group_byNoservice
directionNooutbound = spend, inbound = revenue.outbound
min_amountNoMinimum USDC per transfer, e.g. 0.001.
prepared_forNoOptional client name for the report header.
include_unfilteredNoInclude non-x402 USDC transfers as category=other_transfer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Added value: +"Which report files to produce. Default both."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description clarifies cost ($0.35) and behavior (async, markdown+CSV), but does not disclose return format, auth/rate-limit, side effects, or mutation. 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?

One dense opening sentence conveys purpose, format, cost, and execution model, then schema follows. Not excessively long but could add grouping.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

10 parameters and async job inherent, but no output schema and no narrative for what the retuned file/markdown contains; sibling tools provide some context.

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?

Input-schema coverage is 90% and description adds semantics (EVM address for wallet, default date semantics, group_by enum, min_amount, optional) over raw schema. A few params (prepared_for) only lightly described but overall strong.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'Signed + dual-chain-anchored x402 expense report (markdown + CSV, async). $0.35 USDC.' It clearly reports an expense report with format and cost. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'ledger_summary' beyond saying expense report.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Title implies x402 expense report; includes cost and async context. But no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor named alternatives.

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

All anchor-x402 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct function — anchoring, decoding, wallet intelligence, entertainment, etc. Even similar tools like decode_calldata vs decode_tx and intel_wallet vs screen_wallet are precisely separated by descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names follow a verb_noun pattern (anchor_hash, decode_calldata), but there are exceptions like aura_read (noun_verb), intel_wallet (noun_noun), and ledger_report (ambiguous). This mixed convention is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count4/5

18 tools is slightly above the ideal range but not overwhelming. Each tool serves a specific purpose, and the count feels reasonable for the broad set of utilities offered.

Completeness4/5

The core utilities (anchoring, wallet intelligence, ledger accounting) are well-covered without obvious dead ends. Some domain-specific workflows could be expanded (e.g., verifying anchors), but the existing tools provide complete standalone operations.

Resources