Rubric Protocol MCP Server

wallet_record

Fetches attested x402 payment history for a Base/EVM buyer wallet from an append-only settlement ledger, returning settlements, spend, first/last seen, and services.

Instructions

PAID ($0.005 USDC): attested x402 payment history for a Base/EVM buyer wallet from an append-only settlement ledger - settlements, first/last seen, spend, services. Evidence, not opinion.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "wallet_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	0x wallet address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.4Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses cost ($0.005 USDC), data provenance (append-only settlement ledger), and the attested/evidence nature, but omits permissions, rate limits, pagination, and response shape.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads cost and purpose, then enumerates returned data. 'Evidence, not opinion' acts as a trust signal rather than filler, and there is no structural waste.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers cost, source, and returned fields (settlements, first/last seen, spend, services). It is largely complete, though it could mention address formatting or supported chains.

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% and the single address parameter is documented as '0x wallet address'. The description adds that the wallet is a Base/EVM buyer wallet, clarifying context, but does not add format or validation details beyond 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?

States a specific resource: attested x402 payment history for a Base/EVM buyer wallet, and lists returned data such as settlements, first/last seen, spend, and services. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like agent_record, 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives among siblings are named. The paid cost and 'evidence, not opinion' phrasing imply a verification use case, but the agent must infer it.

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

Deploy Server