Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
InferenceView MCP

InferenceView MCP

by nhantour
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

verify_transaction

Assess risk and get recommendation with evidence before paying an x402/MCP resource. The live x402 challenge controls the price.

Instructions

Before paying an unknown x402/MCP resource, return risk, recommendation, and evidence. The live x402 challenge controls the price.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "verify_transaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe x402 resource URL you are about to pay

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful detail about the live x402 challenge controlling price, but it does not clarify whether the tool has side effects or requires special permissions. The safety profile is missing, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of two concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, usage context, and return categories (risk, recommendation, evidence). It lacks detailed return structure, but the simplicity of the tool makes the description sufficiently 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?

The schema fully covers the 'url' parameter with a clear description. The tool description repeats the context but adds no new parameter semantics. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the tool returns risk, recommendation, and evidence for unknown resources before payment. It uses a specific verb and resource context (x402/MCP resource), but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling 'factcheck', so it falls just short of a 5.

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 provides a clear condition for use: 'Before paying an unknown x402/MCP resource'. This is explicit context, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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