Skip to main content
Glama

AFOS — Agentic Financial OS

by com.focxle

budget_request_increase

Asks the human who owns this agent for more budget, and records why. Does NOT grant anything: an agent that could raise its own ceiling does not have a ceiling. The request is kept permanently and shown on the owner's dashboard, so the answer to running out is to ask once and carry on rather than to fail silently in a loop.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesWhy. A human reads this, so say what the extra budget buys them.
amount_usdYesHow much more you are asking for, per day.
deploymentNoThe deployment asking. Defaults to you.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the schema by explaining that the tool 'Does NOT grant anything,' that 'The request is kept permanently and shown on the owner's dashboard,' and that the correct behavior is to 'ask once and carry on.' This discloses persistence, visibility, and non-mutating intent.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver clear purpose, a crucial limitation, and practical guidance. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff. The description is front-loaded with the action verb, making it easy for an agent to quickly understand the tool's role.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage context effectively. It could mention what happens after the request (e.g., human review timeline) but provided enough for correct invocation. The persistence and 'ask once' guidance make it reasonably 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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (amount_usd, reason, deployment) already described. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail beyond 'records why' which maps to the reason parameter. Per baseline, when the schema fully explains parameters, a 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Asks the human who owns this agent for more budget, and records why.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'Does NOT grant anything,' which separates it from budget-delegation or verification tools.

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 gives implicit usage guidance by stating 'the answer to running out is to ask once and carry on rather than to fail silently in a loop.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool (when budget is exhausted). However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or list exclusions, so it loses one point.

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

All AFOS — Agentic Financial OS toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool is scoped to a distinct resource and action within its domain (budget, contract, deal, escrow, hiring, wallet, workroom, trust). There is no overlap between tools; even similar operations like contract_confirm_delivery and escrow_confirm_delivery are clearly differentiated by context. A model can reliably select the correct tool for a given task.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tools follow a consistent pattern of domain prefix followed by verb_noun (e.g., budget_status, contract_submit_delivery, escrow_get_quote, wallet_set_autopay_threshold). The naming is uniform across all 42 tools, with no mixing of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb placement.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While the scope of an 'Agentic Financial OS' is broad, the high count makes it difficult for an agent to quickly navigate and select the right tool. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple get/list tools per domain, documentation tools like *how_it_works that could be merged). The count exceeds the recommended range and feels excessive.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of financial operations: budget management, negotiation (deal_open/propose/accept/cancel), contract creation and delivery with verification, escrow with payment protection, hiring workflows, wallet operations, trust checks, and a marketplace for data/services. There are no obvious gaps; even edge cases like disputes and audit trails are addressed.

Resources