Skip to main content
Glama

azeth_get_net_paid

Check payment history between two accounts to determine reputation feedback weight. Returns net paid in USD or per-token delta.

Instructions

Check how much one account has paid another — either total USD or per-token.

Use this when: You want to verify payment history between two accounts, which determines feedback weight in the payment-gated reputation system.

Two modes: • No token (default): Returns total net paid in 18-decimal USD, aggregated across all tokens via the on-chain oracle. Always >= 0. • With token: Returns the signed per-token delta. Positive = "from" paid more, negative = "to" paid more. Use 0x0...0 for native ETH.

"from" defaults to your own address ("me") if omitted. "to" accepts a name, address, or "me".

Note: This is a read-only on-chain query. No private key or gas is required (unless "me" or a name is used for resolution).

Example: { "to": "Alice" } or { "from": "#1", "to": "Bob", "token": "0x036CbD53842c5426634e7929541eC2318f3dCF7e" }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
chainNoTarget chain. Defaults to AZETH_CHAIN env var or "baseSepolia". Accepts "base", "baseSepolia", "ethereumSepolia", "ethereum" (and aliases like "base-sepolia", "eth-sepolia", "sepolia", "eth", "mainnet").
fromNoPayer address, name, "me", or "#N" (account index). Defaults to "me" (your first smart account).
toYesPayee address, name, "me", or "#N" (account index).
tokenNoToken address for per-token delta. Omit for total USD across all tokens. Use "0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000" for native ETH.
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden effectively. It specifies return formats (18-decimal USD, signed delta), aggregation logic (across tokens via oracle), value constraints (Always >= 0), auth requirements (no private key unless resolving 'me'/names), and read-only nature. Deducting one point only for missing edge case behavior (e.g., non-existent accounts).

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?

Excellent structure: one-line summary, usage clause, bulleted mode explanations, default behavior notes, auth disclaimer, and JSON examples. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose (scope, usage, behavior, safety, syntax). Length is appropriate for the complexity of the dual-mode logic.

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?

Comprehensive for a read-only query tool lacking annotations or output schema. Explains domain context (payment-gated reputation), return value semantics, and address resolution behavior. Would be perfect with brief mention of error cases or zero-result handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the two operational modes (total USD vs per-token delta) and how parameters interact to trigger each mode. Examples provided ('0x0...0 for native ETH', '#1') supplement the schema constraints effectively.

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 verb-resource combination ('Check how much one account has paid another') and clearly distinguishes this from siblings like azeth_balance (holdings) and azeth_pay (action) by specifying the directional payment relationship between two accounts and the net aggregation concept.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when' clause targeting payment verification for reputation system feedback weight. While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid (e.g., azeth_history), it clearly defines the specific verification use case that distinguishes it from general balance checks or payment execution.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/azeth-protocol/mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server