Skip to main content
Glama

biii

by io.github.philpof102-svg

till_roll

PROVABLE BOOKS: render an agent/merchant's till roll — a shareable statement where EVERY line carries its own txHash + basescan link, so the reader re-verifies each payment on Base themselves (trust no one, not even BIII). This is the substitute for the settlement statement an excluded merchant/agent loses when they leave a PSP. Pure and non-custodial (BIII holds no funds). Pass the verified receipts you collected from till_receipt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNo"en" (default) or "fr"
brandNoWHITE-LABEL: a partner brand for the footer ("via <name>", optionally "· powered by BIII"). String or {name, poweredBy}. The non-custodial disclosure is a fact and stays regardless.
receiptsYesthe verified receipt objects (from till_receipt), each carrying a txHash
merchantNameNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states non-custodial nature ('BIII holds no funds'), trust-minimization ('trust no one'), and that each line is independently verifiable on-chain, which provides critical behavioral context.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence contributes, though the tone is slightly verbose. No unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and 75% schema coverage, the description provides adequate context: input expectations, behavioral guarantees, and output purpose. It sufficiently equips an agent to decide and invoke the tool.

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 75% (3 of 4 params described). Description adds value by clarifying that 'receipts' must be verified objects from till_receipt, and that 'brand' supports white-label with optional poweredBy. This goes beyond schema definitions.

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 states the verb 'render' and the resource 'till roll', emphasizing the shareable statement with txHash and Basescan links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like till_receipt or till_export.

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 explains when to use it: as a substitute for a settlement statement when excluded from a PSP. It also specifies the prerequisite of passing verified receipts from till_receipt. No explicit alternative is named, but the context is sufficient.

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