ASPERN: counterparty checks for agents

What became of a receipt you recorded

receipt_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

What became of a receipt you recorded with record_receipt. We do not take a receipt on your word: each one is read against the payments WE read from the chain and judged verified (it paid the subject and the amount agrees), contradicted (which of the two did not), not-found (absent from what we read two days after it was filed, a statement about our reading and never that it did not happen) or unverifiable (the reference is not a transaction hash). Until judged it is claimed, and a claim raises no evidence status anywhere. Readable only by the key that wrote it. Free.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The id `record_receipt` returned.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The receipt.
`meta`	No	How current this answer is and what it was read from: `freshness` and the ages behind it. Present on every answer from this server, whatever the tool.
`says`	Yes	What was found, or why it is still a claim.
`status`	Yes	What we found when we read it; `claimed` until then.
`subject`	No	The address it is about, read back.
`evidence`	No	The common payment record (TODO-07): `state: built` with `facilitator` (who submitted, never credited), `onChainRecipient`, `listedPayee`, `facilitatorIsRecipient`, `recipientIsListedPayee`, `settlement`, `delivery`, `deliveryEvidence`, `says`; or `state: not-applicable` with `says` naming why no single payment is described.
`warnings`	No	Anything the server wants a caller to know about THIS answer before acting on it. Empty is the normal case and is not a guarantee.
`outcomeAt`	No	When it was judged; null while it is still a claim.
`reference`	No	Your evidence, as you gave it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / evidence

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The common payment record (TODO-07): `state: built` with `facilitator` (who submitted, never credited), `onChainRecipient`, `listedPayee`, `facilitatorIsRecipient`, `recipientIsListedPayee`, `settlement`, `delivery`, `deliveryEvidence`, `says`; or `state: not-applicable` with `says` naming why no single payment is described.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: receipts are judged against payments read from chain, `not-found` is a statement about reading two days after filing rather than proof of absence, `unverifiable` means the reference is not a transaction hash, and claims raise no evidence status. It also states the tool is readable only by the key that wrote the receipt and is free.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause carries useful semantic information about statuses or access. It is dense and parenthetical-heavy, but not padded with irrelevant material.

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 output schema, annotations, and single-parameter schema, the description is complete enough to call the tool correctly. It adds status semantics, access restrictions, cost, and timing caveats that an agent would otherwise lack.

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 100%, so the single parameter is already documented in the schema as the id returned by `record_receipt`. The description reinforces that origin but does not add further syntax, format, or validation details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific operation: retrieving what happened to a receipt previously recorded with `record_receipt`. It clearly distinguishes the tool from `record_receipt` and explains the judged statuses, so an agent can identify the purpose without ambiguity.

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?

Usage is clearly implied and partly explicit: call this after `record_receipt` to learn the judgment on a receipt. However, it does not name alternative tools such as `payment_evidence` or state when not to use this tool.

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

All ASPERN: counterparty checks for agents tools Inspect

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

Need Help?