Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

IFSO

by io.github.ifsodev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

x402 conditional payment status

ifso_release_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

The state of an x402 conditional payment by its terms hash (the x402 payment identifier): pending (no money yet), settled (the money is at the address), duplicate_swept (a second settle landed and went back to the buyer), disputed, released (paid to the seller) or returned (back to the buyer), with the window end and expiry. Retrying a settle with the same terms lands at the same address, so this tells failed from landed late. Read only.

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": {
      "termsHash": "<termsHash>"
    },
    "name": "ifso_release_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termsHashYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the trailing 'Read only.' is largely redundant. The description nevertheless adds real behavior: the full state vocabulary and the idempotency of terms-to-address mapping that makes retry diagnosis possible. It omits what happens on an unknown hash (error vs. empty result).

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 front-loaded sentence leads with the resource and its identifier, then enumerates outcomes; nothing is buried. The trailing 'Read only.' duplicates the annotation, and the parenthetical status definitions make it dense but each clause still earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully inlines the returnable states plus window end and expiry, which is what an agent needs to interpret results. The main residual gap is unknown-hash behavior and the shape of the window/expiry fields.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does identify termsHash as 'the x402 payment identifier', which meaningfully explains an otherwise opaque name, but adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond the schema's 0x+64-hex pattern.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the state of an x402 conditional payment identified by its terms hash. It enumerates the exact domain states it can return (pending, settled, duplicate_swept, disputed, released, returned), which lets an agent recognize the tool's scope even among payment-oriented siblings like ifso_get_payment.

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?

Gives a concrete use case: 'Retrying a settle with the same terms lands at the same address, so this tells failed from landed late.' That is a real when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling (e.g. ifso_get_payment) or stating what to do when no payment exists for the hash.

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