VIA Network: Agentic Commerce

confirm_purchase

Settle a network-MEMBER (e.g. RRG) purchase after you have sent the USDC that buy_product asked for. This is the member two-step: buy_product returns a pay-to address and amount, you transfer USDC on Base, then call this with the tx hash to mint, pay out, and get your download. For physical products include the shipping block and buyer_email. VIA-native purchases do NOT use this: they settle at the /api/x402/purchase endpoint that buy_product returns.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tx_hash`	Yes	The USDC transfer transaction hash on Base.
`order_id`	No	The orderId buy_product returned for this member order. Required for physical member products: the order ships to the address recorded on it.
`shipping`	No	Required for physical member products.
`product_id`	Yes	The member listing/token id (mcp_ref.token_id).
`buyer_email`	No	For order confirmation and file delivery. Required for physical products.
`buyer_wallet`	Yes	The wallet that sent the USDC.
`selected_size`	No	The size you chose at buy_product (must match).
`buyer_agent_id`	No	Your ERC-8004 agent id, for an on-chain trust signal.
`selected_color`	No	The colour you chose at buy_product (must match).
`seller_mcp_url`	Yes	The member seller_mcp_url you called buy_product on.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / order_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The orderId buy_product returned for this member order. Required for physical member products: the order ships to the address recorded on it.",
+  "maxLength": 4096,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

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 well: it discloses that this call mints, pays out, and delivers the download, and that physical products require the shipping block and buyer_email. It does not cover failure modes, idempotency of the tx_hash, permission/auth requirements, or what happens on a mismatched hash, 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the two-step context, then the physical-product caveat and the VIA-native exclusion. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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 10-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the flow, the post-call effects (mint, payout, download), and the physical-product branch, which is enough for correct invocation. It stops short of describing error/edge behavior, a minor gap given 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters including the conditional shipping block and buyer_email requirements. The description restates the physical-product conditional but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Settle a network-MEMBER purchase') and immediately positions it within the buy_product two-step flow. It explicitly names the sibling tool it follows and the alternative settlement path (VIA-native via /api/x402/purchase), so an agent can distinguish it from buy_product and other siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition ('after you have sent the USDC that buy_product asked for'), spells out the sequence (buy_product returns address/amount -> transfer USDC on Base -> call this with tx hash), and states when NOT to use it (VIA-native purchases settle at a different endpoint). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All VIA Network: Agentic Commerce 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?