Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Control — Agent Meter

by net.agent-control
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Watch a Meter invoice

meter_watch

Can I pay this address? Buy looks_20 pack ($0.20) or look $0.10. Stamp ticket $0.05. No inbox. After Base EIP-3009 exact (CDP/AgentKit; no Solana key) or optional Solana USDC, call with invoice_id until token. Pass the Base payment object from payMeterPassBase / sign_exact.payment_template after you fill signature ({ x402Version, payload:{ authorization, signature }, accepted }) — not a raw signature string. Repeat until the result includes token — that is X-Agent-Pass. Then meter_scan with pass_token. Optional signature (tx sig only). We never take keys. No human account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skuNo
paymentNoBase x402 v2 payment object from payMeterPassBase / sign_exact.payment_template (x402Version + payload.authorization + payload.signature + accepted). Not a raw signature string. Never send a secret key.
signatureNoOptional Solana tx signature after local sign. Not a private key.
invoice_idNoFrom meter_buy_pass / 402 invoice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / payment / description
      Previous value: -"Optional Base EIP-3009 exact payload. Never send a secret key."New value: +"Base x402 v2 payment object from payMeterPassBase / sign_exact.payment_template (x402Version + payload.authorization + payload.signature + accepted). Not a raw signature string. Never send a secret key."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / payment
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Base EIP-3009 exact payload. Never send a secret key.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / invoice_id / description
      Added value: +"From meter_buy_pass / 402 invoice."
    • addedInput schema / properties / signature
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional Solana tx signature after local sign. Not a private key.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is a payment/wait loop ('Repeat until the result includes token'), that it never takes keys, and that no human account is involved. It also clarifies the exact shape of the payment object and warns against sending raw signatures or secret keys.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the user question, but it is a long run-on paragraph with many clauses and parentheticals. It contains valuable information but would benefit from clearer sentence breaks and structure. Every sentence earns its place, but readability suffers.

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 payment-watch tool with no output schema, the description covers the payment object shape, the retry loop, the follow-up tool (meter_scan), and security constraints. It does not describe the return value format or error cases, but the workflow is sufficiently specified for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that payment must be the Base x402 v2 object (not a raw signature), that signature is optional and only a tx sig, and that invoice_id comes from meter_buy_pass / 402 invoice. The sku parameter is not explained in the description, but the schema covers most parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a concrete user question ('Can I pay this address?') and names the resource (a Meter invoice) and the action (watch/pay it). It distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing meter_scan and meter_buy_pass, though it doesn't explicitly name a direct alternative for 'watch' vs 'pay'.

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 gives explicit preconditions: use Base EIP-3009 exact via CDP/AgentKit or optional Solana USDC, pass the Base payment object from payMeterPassBase / sign_exact.payment_template, repeat until token appears, then use meter_scan with pass_token. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool versus a sibling, but the workflow context is clear.

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

All Agent Control — Agent Meter 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