aux_bank_destination_receipt_capabilitiesRead the current activation status, evidence boundary, privacy rules, endpoints, sponsorship, and x402 terms for AUX signed bank-destination receipts. This read-only discovery tool never accepts or processes bank data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating it 'never accepts or processes bank data.' It also reveals that it reads current activation status and related terms, giving the agent confidence about side-effect-free discovery.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler: the first enumerates exactly what is read, and the second states the read-only/no-data-processing boundary. Everything earns its place and the key verb and scope are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter discovery tool, the description tells the agent what topics are covered and that it is side-effect-free. It does not describe the response shape, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the listed capability areas are specific enough for selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so the no-parameter baseline applies. The description goes slightly beyond that by explicitly stating the tool never accepts bank data, making it clear that no input payload is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource: activation status, evidence boundary, privacy rules, endpoints, sponsorship, and x402 terms for AUX signed bank-destination receipts. It also labels itself a 'read-only discovery tool,' which separates it from the evaluation/preflight siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the tool's domain clear (capability discovery for AUX bank-destination receipts) but never explicitly states when to choose it over sibling tools such as aux_evidence_evaluate or aux_transaction_preflight. Usage context is implied rather than stated, and no exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct domain or lifecycle step, and descriptions clearly separate capability discovery from evaluation and verification. The two evaluation-like tools (aux_evidence_evaluate and aux_transaction_preflight) could be confused at a glance, but their scenarios are explicitly differentiated.
All names use the aux_ prefix with snake_case, which is a consistent and readable pattern. There is minor inconsistency in whether the final token is a verb (evaluate, verify, start, continue) or a noun (capabilities, preflight, evidence), but the overall structure is predictable.
Ten tools is well within the ideal range and each tool earns its place: three capability discovery tools, several scenario-specific preflight evaluators, a three-step RWA dialogue flow, and a receipt verifier. Nothing feels redundant or bloated.
The surface covers discovery, evaluation, continuation, and verification across multiple financial evidence domains, including a full dialogue lifecycle for RWA actions. Minor gaps exist, such as no general status/history endpoint for past preflights, but the core workflows are complete and operational.