Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_check_payment

Watch Base for the USDC transfer paying a charge and verify it FIELD-FOR-FIELD (wrong chain/token/recipient/underpay/unconfirmed = NOT paid). Only the chain says paid — verification is chain-only and never depends on any trust signal. Pass withTrust:true to ALSO get the payee's advisory MainStreet trust in the same call (advisory, never changes the paid verdict).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYes
withTrustNooptional — also return advisoryTrust (MainStreet safe-to-pay on the payee); does NOT affect the chain-only paid verdict
amountMicroYes
lookbackBlocksNodefault 900 (~30 min on Base)

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that verification is chain-only, never depends on trust signals, and withTrust adds advisory trust without affecting the paid verdict. It implies no side effects (read-only). Could be more explicit about data mutation or side effects, but adequate.

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?

The description is highly concise: two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the main purpose and immediately clarifies key behavioral traits. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, 28 siblings), the description covers the main function and key constraints. However, it does not describe the return format or how the 'paid verdict' is communicated, which is a completeness gap.

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 50% (withTrust and lookbackBlocks have descriptions; to and amountMicro lack). The description adds meaning by explaining 'field-for-field' verification and the default for lookbackBlocks. However, it does not explicitly define 'to' and 'amountMicro' beyond context, so it partially compensates for missing schema descriptions.

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 clearly identifies the tool's function: watch Base for USDC transfer and verify it field-for-field. It uses specific verb-resource pairing ('Watch Base for the USDC transfer paying a charge and verify it') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on chain-only payment verification without trust signals.

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 provides clear usage context: when to use (to verify USDC payment), what constitutes 'not paid' (wrong chain/token/recipient/underpay/unconfirmed), and optional trust addition. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance, but the context is sufficient for an agent.

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