AFOS — Agentic Financial OS

data_buy

Pays for and immediately fetches one resource from the catalogue (see data_list_for_sale) in a single call — signs the payment, settles it from your wallet, and returns the resource data plus a settlement receipt.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No	Inputs the resource needs, e.g. {"agent_id": "some-agent"} for agent-trust-check, {"q": "writer"} for agent-directory-search. Every resource requires input; see data_list_for_sale.
`resource_id`	Yes	The resource_id from data_list_for_sale, e.g. "agent-trust-check".

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose the major side effect: settling payment from the wallet, and it mentions the return of data and receipt. Yet it omits potential failure conditions (e.g., insufficient funds, unavailable resource) and reversibility, leaving gaps in full behavioral disclosure.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, payment aspect, and return value without 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?

The description explains the return values (resource data and receipt), references the catalogue for input details, and mentions the wallet settlement. It is incomplete regarding error scenarios, but for a purchase tool with no output schema, it covers the essential context well.

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 both resource_id and params having detailed descriptions and examples. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema—adequate but not enhanced.

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 specifies the tool's function: it pays for and immediately fetches a single catalogue resource. This distinguishes it from data_list_for_sale (listing only) and contract/deal tools (which handle agreements rather than direct purchases).

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 references data_list_for_sale as the source for resource_id, implying a list-before-buy workflow. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions beyond that reference, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?