OMENZ agent tools

receipt_put

Receipt Locker: record a machine-readable receipt (payer, payee, amount, tx_hash, job, request/response hashes). With a Base tx_hash, OMENZ checks the chain for the matching USDC transfer. Content-addressed id; anyone verifies free. By OMENZ. (MCP calls run in AYNE, the free playzone; production: POST https://www.omenz.org/api/tollbooth/v1/receipt/put, $0.002 via x402.)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "payer": "<payer>",
      "payee": "<payee>",
      "amount": "<amount>"
    },
    "name": "receipt_put"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`payee`	Yes
`payer`	Yes
`amount`	Yes
`job_id`	No
`network`	No
`service`	No
`tx_hash`	No
`currency`	No
`request_sha256`	No
`response_sha256`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful traits such as content-addressed ids, optional Base-chain USDC transfer checking, free verification, and production payment via x402, but it omits permissions, duplicate-handling, failure modes, and response behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and key fields in a single dense paragraph. Production endpoint and pricing details add some bulk but are relevant to invocation context; 'By OMENZ' is minor filler.

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?

For an eleven-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and some behavioral context. However, it leaves important gaps around parameter formats, auth/error semantics, and return shape, so it is only adequate rather than complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It names and groups seven of the eleven parameters (payer, payee, amount, tx_hash, job, request/response hashes), but omits note, network, service, and currency, and gives no format or requiredness details.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'record a machine-readable receipt', then names key receipt fields and chain-verification behavior. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as locker_put or failure_put.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any when-not conditions. The 'With a Base tx_hash' sentence describes verification behavior, not tool-selection guidance.

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

All OMENZ agent tools 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?