Atomadic MCP

Receipt Reputation

receipt_reputation

Idempotent

[Ledger product, entitlement: ledger] Compute an agent's reputation from a ledger of verifiable receipts (verified minus refuted), deterministically - not from vibes or LLM judgment. 3 free calls/day, then entitlement 'ledger'.

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": {
      "receipts": "<receipts>"
    },
    "name": "receipt_reputation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`receipts`	Yes	List of receipt objects, each with an 'ok' boolean and optional 'score'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: deterministic computation, the verified-minus-refuted formula, free-call limits, and entitlement requirements. It does not explain why readOnlyHint is false or what side effects, if any, occur.

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 compact and mostly front-loaded, with the core purpose stated immediately after product metadata. The entitlement and free-call note is useful but slightly interrupts the main explanation.

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 a one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the input source and computation method adequately. It still leaves the return value shape unspecified and lacks sibling routing guidance, which would help an agent choose this tool over related reputation and trust tools.

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 receipts parameter is already documented. The description adds the formula 'verified minus refuted,' but it does not explicitly map the 'ok' boolean or optional 'score' field to that computation, so it only marginally extends the schema.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: computing an agent's reputation from a ledger of verifiable receipts. It also clarifies the deterministic receipt-based mechanism and contrasts it with LLM judgment. However, it does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling reputation tools such as agents_reputation, trust_score, or reputation_record.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the use case: computing reputation when a ledger of verifiable receipts exists. It adds entitlement and rate-limit context, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance relative to the many reputation-related siblings.

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

All Atomadic MCP 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?