satledger timestamp receipt

RFC 3161 timestamp receipt

timestamp_receipt

Submit a SHA-256 digest and receive a Time-Stamp Authority's signed RFC 3161 token over it: evidence that the data you hashed existed at that time, verifiable against the authority without trusting or contacting this service. Hash your data yourself - it never leaves your side. Your first 3 each day are free, no payment needed. Then 0.05 USDC for one, or 0.50 for up to 10 in a single call and a single payment, bound to one timestamp by a Merkle root. Paid over x402. No account, nothing stored here afterwards.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`digest`	No	SHA-256 hex digest, 64 characters.
`digests`	No	Up to 10 digests in one call and one payment, bound to a single timestamp by a Merkle root. Each comes back with the proof that binds it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

addedInput schema / oneOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "digest"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "digests"
+    ]
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / digests

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Up to 10 digests in one call and one payment, bound to a single timestamp by a Merkle root. Each comes back with the proof that binds it.",
+  "items": {
+    "pattern": "^[0-9a-fA-F]{64}$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 10,
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "digest"
-]
```

First observedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: 3 free calls per day, 0.05 USDC per single / 0.50 for up to 10, x402 payment, no account, and 'nothing stored here afterwards'. It also discloses the trust model (verifiable without contacting the service), which an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect in the first sentence, then pricing and trust details in short clauses. It is long, but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs (cost, batching, privacy) rather than filler.

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 2-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, cost, batching, trust model and data-handling, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the exact shape of the returned token/proof, a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by clarifying that the caller must hash locally and that multiple digests are bound to one timestamp via a Merkle root returned per digest. It adds the batch/payment coupling and the oneOf single-vs-array intent beyond the raw pattern constraints.

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?

States a precise verb+resource+mechanism: submit a SHA-256 digest and receive an RFC 3161 Time-Stamp Authority token as existence evidence. It also names the verification property (verifiable against the authority without trusting this service), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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?

Explains the workflow ('hash your data yourself - it never leaves your side') and the cost/free-tier conditions, which tells the agent when a call is warranted and what it costs. There are no sibling tools, so no alternative routing is needed, but it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it.

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

All satledger timestamp receipt 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?