Skip to main content
Glama

SnapEX Pay

Create an invoice (receive crypto)

create_invoice
Idempotent

Creates an invoice and returns pay_url — a hosted payment page where the payer picks a coin and pays; the amount is credited to your balance in USDT minus the fee. Give amount_usd, or price_amount + price_currency (converted at get_fiat_rates). Use environment "test" to try the whole flow without real money: a test invoice turns paid by itself about 10 seconds after a coin is selected (on its page or with select_invoice_payment_method); the real balance does not change. Then follow the status with get_invoice or webhooks (invoice.paid). To get a deposit address right away instead of a page, pass asset_id (and lock_method true), or call select_invoice_payment_method.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fee_onNoWho pays the service fee: you (default) or the payer on top of the amount.
asset_idNoPreselect the coin the payer pays with (Public asset code from list_assets (its asset_id field), e.g. "usdt" (USDT TRC20), "btc", "eth", "xmr", "usdc_eth".)
amount_usdNoInvoice amount in USD. Either this or price_amount + price_currency.
cancel_urlNoWhere the payer returns on cancel.
expires_inNoSeconds until the invoice expires.
descriptionNoWhat is paid for; shown to the payer.
environmentNo"test" — no real money: paid by itself ~10 s after a coin is selected, balance unchanged.live
external_idNoYour own reference (order id); unique per account.
lock_methodNotrue — the payer cannot change asset_id (requires asset_id).
success_urlNoWhere the payer returns after paying.
price_amountNoPrice in your currency (with price_currency).
price_currencyNoISO 4217 currency of price_amount.
idempotency_keyNoOptional. The same key returns the same result instead of a duplicate (safe retries); generated when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare write, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes beyond them with real behavioral detail: test invoices self-pay ~10s after coin selection and do not touch the balance, and funds settle to USDT minus fee. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or expiry/rate limits, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 purpose and return value are front-loaded, then usage rules, then the test-mode caveat, then follow-up steps — a sensible priority order with no filler. It is dense and long-ish for a single paragraph, but each sentence carries distinct operational information.

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?

With 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description still covers what matters: what is returned (pay_url), what happens to the money, how test mode behaves, and how to track status afterwards. Remaining gaps (redirect URLs, expiry) are fully documented in the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 still adds cross-parameter meaning the schema doesn't: the either/or between amount_usd and price_amount + price_currency, and that asset_id (+ lock_method true) yields a deposit address instead of a page — exactly the dependency an agent could otherwise miss.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ('Creates an invoice') followed immediately by the concrete return value (pay_url) and the money semantic (credited to balance in USDT minus fee). It distinguishes itself from lookalike siblings by explaining the pay_url page versus a raw deposit address and pointing to select_invoice_payment_method for that other case.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It states the two accepted amount paths (amount_usd, or price_amount + price_currency with get_fiat_rates named), the test-mode path, and the follow-up path (get_invoice or invoice.paid webhook). Alternative tools and the conditions that select them are named explicitly rather than inferred.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources