agent-verifier-mcp

settle

Confirm a payment hold after successful payment or cancel it after failure. Use with hold ID from budget check and success flag.

Instructions

Confirm or cancel a payment hold. Call AFTER payment succeeds (success=true) or fails (success=false).

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": {
      "hold_id": "<hold_id>",
      "success": "<success>"
    },
    "name": "settle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hold_id`	Yes	Hold ID from check_budget
`success`	Yes	true if payment succeeded, false to release the hold

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it confirms or cancels a hold but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether the hold is released, idempotency, or if further actions are needed). This is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose and usage condition without any extraneous words. It is highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, but the description omits return value information (no output schema) and does not mention prerequisites like having a valid hold from check_budget. It covers the basic action but lacks completeness for an agent to use without potential gaps.

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 explains both parameters. The description reinforces the success parameter's usage ('Call AFTER...') but does not add new meaning 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?

The description clearly states it confirms or cancels a payment hold based on the success parameter. It distinguishes the tool's action but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'release' tool, which might have similar functionality.

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?

The description explicitly says to call after payment succeeds or fails, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives such as 'release'.

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

Deploy Server