automaton

x402check__settle

Verify an on-chain USDC settlement actually landed on Base: decodes the ERC-20 Transfer (token, decimals, amount, sender, recipient), success status, and whether the recipient matches the payTo you expected. $0.01/call. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/x402check/settle

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": {
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "x402check__settle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hash`	Yes	Base transaction hash (0x...)
`payTo`	No	Expected recipient address to compare against
`min_amount`	No	Minimum acceptable USDC amount, e.g. 0.01

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / hash / description
```
Added value: +"Base transaction hash (0x...)"
```

addedInput schema / properties / min_amount

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Minimum acceptable USDC amount, e.g. 0.01",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / payTo

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Expected recipient address to compare against",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "hash"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedNov 2, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / chain
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the return contents (token, decimals, amount, sender, recipient, success status, payTo match), the paid-access requirement (x402 payment in params._meta), and the cost. It does not state error/pending-transaction behavior or that it is read-only and non-mutating, which keeps it below 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The core verification sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the pricing is stated twice ('$0.01/call' then 'Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453)') and the raw HTTP endpoint adds little for an agent invoking the MCP tool. Redundancy costs it points against an otherwise dense description.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey return values, and it does enumerate the decoded fields. Combined with the payment-access disclosure and the fully described three-parameter schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only failure/pending semantics are missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning by explaining that payTo is compared against the decoded recipient; min_amount and hash are fully covered by the schema alone.

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 names a specific verb and resource: verify an on-chain USDC settlement on Base. It also enumerates exactly what the check inspects (ERC-20 Transfer fields, success status, payTo match), so an agent knows the output shape. It never names a differentiating sibling (e.g. x402check__check or x402check__batch), so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: you would call this after a payment to confirm it landed. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to alternatives such as x402check__check or x402check__verify, and no statement about what to do with a pending or unmined transaction.

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

All automaton 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?