Skip to main content
Glama

aspern

by org.aspern
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

preflight_payment

Call this immediately before sending a payment, every time — not once per counterparty. It weighs THIS payment (the amount, the chain, the endpoint) against what the address has actually done: the price the seller themselves published for that endpoint, the address that endpoint names as its payee, the largest payment this address has ever received, and whether it has ever been paid on the chain you are about to use. Answers one of three verdicts. nothing-against-it means every check ran and none objected — it is NOT a statement that the payment is safe, because nothing here can see what the payment is for or what you agreed. look-first means at least one thing does not match, and the findings say which. cannot-say means we did not read enough to have an opinion, and must never be read as the first. Free. Give as much of amountUsd, chain and resource as you have: each one left out is a check that did not run, and the answer says so rather than passing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesThe address you are about to pay.
chainNoThe chain you are about to send it on, e.g. base, polygon, solana.
resourceNoThe http(s) URL of the endpoint you are buying, where there is one. This is the sharpest check available: its catalogue entry carries the seller’s own price and their own payee address.
amountUsdNoWhat you are about to send, in US dollars.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the three possible verdicts and their precise meanings, including that 'nothing-against-it' is NOT a safety guarantee, and that 'cannot-say' must never be read as the first. It also explains that missing fields mean checks didn't run. This is exemplary transparency.

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 a single coherent paragraph that front-loads the immediate action ('Call this immediately before sending a payment'). It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds substance, explaining the checks, verdicts, and limitations. Structure is logical and scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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, no annotations), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the verdicts, the impact of missing parameters, the free nature, and the inherent limitations (cannot see the purpose of payment). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is omitted.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by explaining that each missing parameter means a check didn't run, and specifically highlights 'resource' as the sharpest check with the seller's own price and payee address. This goes beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: preflight a payment against historical data to get a verdict. It specifies the verb 'preflight' and the resource 'payment', and explains what it weighs (amount, chain, endpoint vs. address history). It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or contrast with them, but the purpose is distinct and unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Call this immediately before sending a payment, every time — not once per counterparty.' It also advises on what to provide ('Give as much of amountUsd, chain and resource as you have'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the 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 aspern 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