Underground Cultural District MCP Server

verify-receipt

Verify a USDC payment and retrieve purchased content by submitting a product ID and transaction hash from Base or Solana.

Instructions

Verify a direct USDC payment and receive purchased content. Provide the transaction hash from Base or Solana.

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": {
      "product_id": "<product_id>",
      "tx_hash": "<tx_hash>"
    },
    "name": "verify-receipt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`product_id`	Yes	Product ID you purchased
`tx_hash`	Yes	Transaction hash of your USDC payment on Base or Solana

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv4.3.1May 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool verifies and delivers content but does not disclose side effects (e.g., what happens on failure, if content is marked as received, or any authorization requirements).

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?

Two sentences are concise and front-load the purpose. It efficiently communicates what to do and what to provide.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the action and inputs. It could be more detailed about the output (receiving content), but given the tool's simplicity, it is fairly complete.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as specifying the blockchain (Base or Solana) for the tx_hash. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers meanings.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: verify a USDC payment and receive purchased content. It specifies the action (verify, receive) and the resource (USDC payment, content). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get-free-content and buy-from-underground by focusing on verification after purchase.

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 instructs to provide the transaction hash from Base or Solana, which guides usage. However, it does not give alternatives or conditions for when not to use this tool.

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