Skip to main content
Glama

Create a Monero/Zcash payment watch (paid via x402 at REST)

seneschal_private_watch_create

Subscribe a Monero or Zcash address to view-key-based payment monitoring. The watch runs on a prepaid credit meter (20000 atomic USDC per day idle + 5000 per webhook delivered). Creation at the REST surface (POST /v1/private/watch) is paywalled at $0.10 via x402 and seeds the watch with $0.10 of credit. Receiver gets HMAC-signed webhooks plus a 'credit' block on every body; a 'low_credit' warning fires once before the meter expires. Top up via /v1/private/topup, topup-1, or topup-5. View keys are AES-256-GCM encrypted at rest.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainYesWhich privacy chain to monitor.
addressYesPublic address for the chain. Monero: standard 95-char base58. Zcash: u1*, t1*, t3*, zs1*.
viewKeyYesMonero: 64-hex private view key. Zcash: UFVK starting with uview1.
webhookUrlYesHTTPS endpoint we POST signed webhooks to. Private RFC1918/localhost addresses are rejected.
birthdayHeightNoBlock height the wallet was created at. Monero: scans forward from this height. Zcash: defaults to NU6 (3_042_000) if unspecified.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / birthdayHeight / description
      Previous value: -"Zcash only: block height the wallet was created at. Skips re-scanning earlier blocks. Strongly recommended for Zcash to keep scans fast."New value: +"Block height the wallet was created at. Monero: scans forward from this height. Zcash: defaults to NU6 (3_042_000) if unspecified."
    • removedInput schema / properties / durationDays
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Watch lifetime in days. Default undefined.",
      -  "maximum": 9007199254740991,
      -  "minimum": -9007199254740991,
      -  "type": "integer"
      -}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / durationDays / description
      Previous value: -"Watch lifetime in days. Default 7."New value: +"Watch lifetime in days. Default undefined."
    • changedInput schema / properties / durationDays / maximum
      Previous value: -30New value: +9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / properties / durationDays / minimum
      Previous value: -1New value: +-9007199254740991
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and excels: it discloses the credit meter rates (20000 atomic USDC/day idle + 5000 per webhook), the $0.10 seed credit, HMAC-signed webhooks, the 'credit' block on every body, the one-time 'low_credit' warning, and AES-256-GCM encryption of view keys at rest.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense yet purposeful; each sentence adds a distinct operational fact: purpose, credit meter, paywall, webhook behavior, top-up endpoints, and encryption. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no 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?

Given the tool's complexity (paid, credit-metered watch with webhook delivery), the description covers payment model, security, and related endpoints. However, it does not describe the response/return value, which is a minor gap since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational context (view-key encryption, webhook signing) but does not deepen the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Subscribe a Monero or Zcash address to view-key-based payment monitoring.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like seneschal_private_watch_topup or seneschal_private_watch_info.

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 explicitly covers the prepaid credit meter, the $0.10 x402 paywall at creation, and mentions the top-up endpoints, helping the agent understand when creation is necessary. It does not explicitly name alternative creation tools like seneschal_private_watch_create_crypto, 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources