Returns your (the calling agent's) micro-payment settlement threshold — the accrued debt amount at which pending micro-payments (mode="micro_payment" on /api/v1/deduct) settle immediately, rather than waiting for the periodic safety-net sweep. Shows whether it's your own override or the platform default.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the semantics of the threshold, the context of micro-payment settlement mode, and how it differs from the safety-net sweep. It also discloses whether the value is an agent override or platform default. No side effects or hidden behaviors are relevant, and nothing is misleading.
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, front-loaded with the main action ('Returns your threshold'), then concise explanatory details. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff. The structure is efficient and clear.
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 tool is simple (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), and the description provides sufficient context: what is returned, what it means, and how it relates to the broader payment system. It could mention return format or error conditions, but for a getter of this simplicity, the description is adequately complete.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers all parameters (100%). The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero parameters.
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 tool returns the calling agent's micro-payment settlement threshold, explains what that means (accrued debt amount for immediate settlement), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like wallet_set_autopay_threshold. It is specific about the resource and the verb 'Returns', with full differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided. The description conveys this is a read-only inspection tool for the autopay threshold, and the sibling setter exists, but it does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to check your threshold' or mention when not to use it. No 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 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.
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.
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.
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.