WHP Standing Decision Integrity Protocol evaluation rail. Machine-verifiable standing assessments for autonomous agents before consequential actions.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools map to distinct phases: contract (discovery/schema), evaluation (paid assessment request), and result (retrieval without recharge). 'contract' vs 'evaluation' could be slightly confused since both relate to discovery/setup, but the descriptions clarify boundaries well.
All tools share the predictable whp_standing_ prefix with a clear noun/action suffix (contract, evaluation, result). Fully consistent convention throughout.
Three tools cleanly cover the narrow purpose of a paid standing-assessment service. The count is on the lean side but each tool earns its place around the discover/pay/retrieve lifecycle.
The surface covers the full flow: discovering the contract/authority prerequisites, requesting and paying for an evaluation, and retrieving the resulting Mark. No obvious dead ends, though error/refund or status-check operations are absent.
Discover WHP Standing: Machine-verifiable standing under explicit authority and bounds. Includes exact profile, schema, authority prerequisites and owner-authorized payment contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations already declaring readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the safety profile is covered. The description adds relevant behavioral context by stating the result is machine-verifiable, bounded by explicit authority, and contains the payment contract and prerequisites. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
The description is a single sentence with a colon-separated summary that front-loads the core action and then lists the included components. It is compact and efficient, though the phrase 'Machine-verifiable standing under explicit authority and bounds' is somewhat abstract and jargon-heavy.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description names the key return elements: exact profile, schema, authority prerequisites, and owner-authorized payment contract. For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool this is sufficient to set expectations, even though the exact output format is not detailed.
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?
This tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information for the description to supply. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter-specific details.
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 names a specific action (Discover) and resource (WHP Standing), and enumerates bundled content: exact profile, schema, authority prerequisites, and owner-authorized payment contract. It is clear about what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tools, preventing a 5.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as whp_standing_evaluation or whp_standing_result. The content list implies a contract-discovery role, but no when-to-use, exclusion, or alternative-selection information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Request a WHP Standing Evaluation. First call returns the exact HTTP 402 payment terms. Supply only the buyer’s own pre-authorized payment signature on retry. Paying does not establish standing; a failed assessment has no Mark.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_proof | Yes | ||
| submission_raw | Yes | ||
| payment_signature | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description goes beyond by disclosing the payment requirement, the retry mechanism, and the consequence of failed assessments. This is substantial behavioral context not captured in annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and then essential behavioral details. No wasted words, and the structure is efficient.
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?
The description covers the payment flow but lacks explanation of the input parameters (submission_raw, client_proof) and does not describe the output or success criteria beyond the 402 response. With no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the evaluation returns or how success is indicated.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies payment_signature ('buyer’s own pre-authorized payment signature on retry') but offers no explanation for submission_raw or client_proof. The description only partially addresses the parameters, leaving two required fields unexplained.
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 clearly states the action ('Request a WHP Standing Evaluation') with a specific resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings (whp_standing_contract, whp_standing_result), but the purpose is unambiguous and the context implies it is the initial evaluation request.
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?
Provides clear usage flow: first call returns payment terms, retry with pre-authorized signature. Also notes that paying does not establish standing and failed assessments have no Mark, which guides when to use and what to expect. However, it does not mention when to use this tool vs. the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve the exact original WHP Standing Mark or negative assessment bytes with buyer authentication, without another charge.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| purchase_id | Yes | ||
| client_proof | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that buyer authentication is required and that invoking it does not incur another charge. It also emphasizes exact original bytes, adding behavioral fidelity context.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with action and object, no filler. Every phrase adds a constraint or expectation.
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?
The core retrieval behavior and auth requirement are present, and annotations cover safety and idempotence. But with no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, it is incomplete for an agent to know what client_proof should contain and what response shape to expect.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It only alludes to client_proof as 'buyer authentication' and leaves purchase_id entirely implicit; it doesn't explain proof origin/format or how purchase_id relates to the purchase.
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 verb 'Retrieve' plus a precise object ('exact original WHP Standing Mark or negative assessment bytes') clarifies that this returns stored result data, not modifies it. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools, but the resource scope and 'without another charge' distinguish it from contract/evaluation operations.
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 implies this is the post-purchase retrieval path ('without another charge', 'buyer authentication'), so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it offers no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance relative to the sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
whp_standing_contractwhp_standing_evaluationwhp_standing_result
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.