Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Agent Receipt Verify

Agent Receipt Verify

by holistis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

link_receipt_to_settlement

Verifies after payment that a signed offer-receipt resolves to exactly one real on-chain settlement. Takes the payload plus the seller's authorization salt and returns linked, not linked, or could-not-check.

Instructions

Check AFTER paying that a version 2 offer-receipt belongs to exactly one real on-chain settlement. Takes the signed receipt payload plus the authorization salt the seller returned outside it, and resolves the salted commitment against live chain state. Answers linked, not linked, or could-not-check, and never guesses between them.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
saltYesThe authorizationSalt from extensions["offer-receipt"].info, which is deliberately not inside the signed payload
assetYesThe token contract from the accepts entry that was paid, for example the USDC address
rpcUrlNoOptional. An RPC endpoint to use instead of the public default for that network.
payloadYesThe signed receipt payload, the object with version, network, payer and authorizationCommitment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that resolution happens against live chain state, that the salt lives outside the signed payload, and that the result is tri-state (linked / not linked / could-not-check). It does not discuss network requirements, rate limits, or failure modes when RPC is unreachable.

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?

Three tight sentences, with the 'AFTER paying' precondition front-loaded ahead of the input and output semantics. No wasted clauses, though the last sentence is slightly rhetorical.

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?

Without annotations or an output schema, the description compensates by spelling out the tri-state result and its no-guessing guarantee. What remains unsaid — default RPC network, error behavior — is minor for a verification tool and partly covered by schema parameter descriptions.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including why the salt sits outside the payload. The description reinforces the payload+salt combination conceptually 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource — verify that a version 2 offer-receipt maps to exactly one real on-chain settlement — and adds scope ('exactly one', 'live chain state'). An agent can tell this is a post-payment verification step, not a generic lookup, without opening the schema.

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?

'Check AFTER paying' gives an explicit temporal precondition, which is the key usage rule here. It does not name or exclude the sibling check_x402_endpoint, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools