Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Dagon Inference

by io.github.inkwell-finance
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Confirm a Dagon credit purchase

dagon_confirm_purchase
Idempotent

Report a dagon_buy_credits payment the payer signed so the connection's Dagon key is credited (POST /v1/credits/purchase/confirm). Submit it yourself and pass its signature.

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": {
      "purchase_id": "<purchase_id>"
    },
    "name": "dagon_confirm_purchase"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
signatureNoBase58 Solana transaction signature of the payment you submitted.
purchase_idYespurchase_id returned by dagon_buy_credits.
signed_transactionNoLegacy pre-cutover confirmation payload; new purchases use signature and buyer-paid network fees.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / signature / description
      Previous value: -"Base58 Solana transaction signature of the payment you submitted (not fee sponsored)."New value: +"Base58 Solana transaction signature of the payment you submitted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / signed_transaction / description
      Previous value: -"Base64 wallet-signed transaction of a fee-sponsored purchase, not submitted."New value: +"Legacy pre-cutover confirmation payload; new purchases use signature and buyer-paid network fees."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, open-world, idempotent operation, so the description's added value is the state change ('the connection's Dagon key is credited') and the caller-side prerequisite that the transaction must be submitted first. It stops short of describing failure modes or what happens if confirmation is replayed, which would be the remaining useful detail for an idempotent write.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the effect and endpoint come first, the caller's obligation second. Nothing is repeated from the name or title and nothing extraneous is included.

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?

For a three-parameter write with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: what the call accomplishes and the sequencing constraint. Only the ordering of the confirm step relative to the signed_transaction legacy path is left implicit.

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 a step above it by clarifying which signature is required — the signature of the transaction the caller submitted, not an arbitrary payer signature. It does not address the legacy signed_transaction field, but the schema already marks it as pre-cutover.

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 and resource ('Report a dagon_buy_credits payment ... so the connection's Dagon key is credited') and names the sibling tool that produces the input, so the agent can place it in the purchase flow without opening a schema. It also gives the underlying endpoint, removing any ambiguity about which operation is performed.

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?

The sentence 'Submit it yourself and pass its signature' establishes the required ordering: dagon_buy_credits produces the payment, the caller broadcasts it, then this tool confirms it. That is clear context, but there is no explicit statement of when not to call it (e.g., before broadcast) or a named alternative for the legacy path.

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

All Dagon Inference 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