Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

IFSO

by io.github.ifsodev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

IFSO payments for an address

ifso_list_payments
Read-onlyIdempotent

The if-so payments where an address is the sender or the recipient, newest first, 20 at a time (the same list as the web dashboard, from the IFSO index of the chain, up to the newest 100). Each item has the id, status, amount, the other side and the expiry. Pass nextCursor back as cursor for the next page. For the live chain state of one payment use ifso_get_payment.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "ifso_list_payments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many payments to return (default and most 20).
cursorNoThe nextCursor of the previous answer: the list continues after that payment.
addressYesThe wallet address to look up (sender or recipient).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds behavior the annotations cannot: newest-first ordering, page size, the source (IFSO index of the chain), a hard ceiling of the newest 100 results, and the shape of each item. The 100-result cap is an important silent-truncation disclosure that an agent would otherwise not know.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering, then pagination mechanics, then the sibling pointer. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the item fields (id, status, amount, counterparty, expiry) and giving the cursor field name for the next page. For a three-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret results is missing.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by naming the response field nextCursor and tying it to the cursor parameter, which is information the schema alone does not supply (the schema only says "the nextCursor of the previous answer"). It does not add anything for the limit parameter beyond what the schema states.

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 if-so payments where an address is the sender or the recipient" gives a specific verb and resource plus the exact scope, and it explicitly distinguishes itself from ifso_get_payment, the sibling that handles single-payment lookups. An agent can select this tool without opening any schema.

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 names one alternative explicitly ("For the live chain state of one payment use ifso_get_payment") with the condition that selects it, and the pagination instruction tells the agent how to continue. It stops short of addressing the other siblings (ifso_list_conditions, ifso_explain_payment) or stating when this list is the wrong choice, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All IFSO 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