Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_check_invoice

Check an invoice against the chain: settled (paid on-chain, field-for-field) / overdue / issued / not_observable (settles on a rail BIII cannot read — ask the merchant's books, never assume unpaid). If settled, returns the receipt for the registry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
railNooptional — the SAME rail the invoice was created with. This tool rebuilds the invoice from these arguments, so a rail not passed here is a rail BIII cannot know about, and an off-chain invoice would be reported "overdue, unpaid" about a customer who has paid.
numberNo
dueDateMsNo
totalMicroYesthe invoice totalMicro
merchantNameNo
lookbackBlocksNodefault 43200 (~1 day on Base); invoices are slower than tills

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / rail
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "optional — the SAME rail the invoice was created with. This tool rebuilds the invoice from these arguments, so a rail not passed here is a rail BIII cannot know about, and an off-chain invoice would be reported \"overdue, unpaid\" about a customer who has paid.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full disclosure duty and does well by explaining the 'not_observable' rail limitation, instructing the agent never to assume unpaid, and stating that a settled invoice returns a receipt. It lacks explicit mention of whether the operation is read-only or whether errors or rate limits exist, but the provided caveats are substantial and behaviorally relevant.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core purpose and outcome enumerations in a single sentence. The parenthetical asides are dense but all earn their place by clarifying edge cases and the return behavior. Minor structural awkwardness (long clauses, nested dashes) keeps it from being perfectly elegant.

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?

The description explains the main statuses and the settled-return behavior, but without an output schema it does not fully describe the return structure for non-settled statuses. It also omits any guidance on how required parameters like 'to' and 'totalMicro' relate to invoice rebuilding, leaving a noticeable gap given the 7-parameter complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is only 43%, yet the main description adds no parameter-level meaning. It mentions 'field-for-field' but never names or explains the individual parameters like to, number, dueDateMs, or merchantName, which are left undescribed in the schema. The description therefore fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('an invoice'), then immediately enumerates the distinct outcomes: settled, overdue, issued, and not_observable. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like till_check_payment and till_receipt by focusing on invoice status verification against the chain.

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 description clearly conveys when to use this tool: to check an invoice against the chain and obtain its status, with the additional guidance that a not_observable result should lead to checking the merchant's books rather than assuming non-payment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All biii 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct, well-named purposes (vet_agent vs vet_merchant), but there is notable overlap between till_trust and till_vet_merchant (both provide trust verdicts), and till_launch_funder vs till_funder_history are closely related. The descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent could still misselect between a few pairs.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the till_ prefix, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (check_invoice, create_charge, watch_wallet) while others are noun phrases (key_exposure, open_approvals, rug_powers) or bare nouns (floor, trust, roll). This is readable but not predictable, so an agent cannot reliably guess a tool name from a verb.

Tool Count2/5

At 29 tools, this server exceeds the 25+ threshold that signals an overgrown toolkit. Even with a broad domain, many tools are one-off niche scanners (till_b20_authentic, till_floor, till_meter) that inflate the surface and could be consolidated or externalized.

Completeness4/5

The toolkit covers the payment lifecycle comprehensively: create charges/invoices, check payments, verify delivery, generate receipts, rolls, and accounting exports. It also spans identity, trust, security scanning, and theft tracing. Minor gaps exist (no update/cancel for charges, no token-general vetting), but the non-custodial, read-only design makes these acceptable.

Resources