Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
spines-underground

spines-underground

by lisamaraventano-spine
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

verify-receipt

Verify an on-chain USDC payment by providing a transaction hash and product ID to receive purchased content.

Instructions

Verify a direct USDC payment and receive purchased content. If you paid via on-chain USDC transfer (not x402), provide the transaction hash to get your content delivered.

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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
product_idYesProduct ID you purchased (e.g. existential_espresso, philosophy_of_spine)
tx_hashYesTransaction hash of your USDC payment on Base

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses that it verifies payment and delivers content, but lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or side effects (e.g., marking payment used). Adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second details usage condition. No fluff, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

With 2 simple params and no output schema, the description explains what the tool does and when to use it. It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., URL or file), but it is sufficient for a verification tool. Almost complete.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by specifying the blockchain (Base) and providing examples for product_id, which augments the schema.

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 verb 'verify' and resource 'USDC payment' with the goal to 'receive purchased content'. It distinguishes from siblings like buy-from-spines-underground by specifying the use case for on-chain USDC transfer verification.

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 clear context for when to use: after a direct USDC transfer (not x402). Does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, but the condition is well-stated.

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