MCPFax Agent Continuity

Record a spend against a unit of work

budget_record

An agent cannot see its own spend across sessions, so runaway cost is invisible until the bill arrives. Append one amount to this scope's ledger. FREE and APPEND-ONLY — nothing is overwritten and nothing is silently dropped; when the ledger is full, adds are REFUSED. The amount is an OPAQUE DECIMAL STRING stored byte-exact as you send it: we never convert a currency, never assume six decimals and never touch a float. Totals are summed as exact integers at the widest scale you actually used. FREE — this tool never charges. Authenticate with Authorization: Bearer , or pass agent_key as an argument if your host cannot set headers. Equivalent HTTP route: POST /v1/budget/record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`label`	No	What the money went on, so budget_check can break the total down. <=64 chars, stored in plain text. Example: 'resume_packet'.
`limit`	No	Optional. Set or update this scope's limit, as a decimal string. We only ever REPORT against it — we never block a call, because enforcement is your decision and not our authority. Example: '1.00'.
`scope`	Yes	The unit of work this spend belongs to. Namespace-scoped, and the same scope resume_packet reports against. Example: 'permit-review-2026-08'.
`agent_key`	No	Your agent_secret, if your MCP host cannot set the Authorization header. Prefer the header.
`amount_usdc`	Yes	A decimal string, e.g. '0.002' or '1.25'. Stored EXACTLY as given and returned byte-identical. Optionally negative for a refund. Never converted or rescaled. Example: '0.002'.
`ttl_seconds`	No	Ledger retention. Default 2592000 (30d), max 7776000 (90d). Example: '2592000'.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only set false hints, so the description carries the safety burden. It discloses FREE/no charge, APPEND-ONLY semantics, refusal when full, byte-exact decimal storage, and auth via Authorization header or agent_key, all beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than typical but front-loads the problem statement and key constraints. It repeats 'FREE' twice and includes route info that is useful but not essential, so not perfectly concise.

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?

Covers purpose, append-only behavior, storage format, auth, retention/ttl context, and failure mode when full. It does not describe the response shape, but with no output schema and a simple side-effect tool, this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already covers all 6 params with examples, so baseline is 3. Description adds cross-cutting semantics: amount is an opaque decimal string stored byte-identical, refunds are allowed via negative values, limit is never enforced, and agent_key is a fallback to the header.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'append' and resource 'ledger' for a scope, explicitly stating it records spend against a unit of work. This clearly differentiates it from sibling budget_check, which presumably reads the same ledger.

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 opens with the problem of invisible spend and says to append one amount, making the intended use obvious. It does not explicitly name budget_check as the read-side alternative, so exclusion guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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

All MCPFax Agent Continuity 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

Every tool targets a clearly distinct mechanism—barriers, budgets, checkpoints, claims, heartbeats, inboxes, leases, work queues, etc. Even closely related pairs like claim/complete, work_done/inbox_ack, and barrier_status/work_status are explicitly differentiated in their descriptions, so an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant pattern is object_verb (e.g., checkpoint_get, work_push, seen_add, lease_release), which is consistent and readable. A few single-word verbs (claim, complete, send) and noun-only names (resume_packet, retry_state, whoami) break the pattern, but they are few and still intuitive.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the surface is well beyond the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' and will feel heavy for agents to explore, even though the tools are organized into subdomains. The scope is broad, but the sheer number makes the server less approachable and increases the chance of misselection.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides thorough lifecycle coverage across its domains: checkpoints get/put, work queue push/take/done/fail/status, inbox poll/ack/nack/schedule, lease acquire/renew/release, barrier create/signal/status, dedup add/check, watermark get/set, retry state, budget check/record, and idempotency claim/complete. There are no obvious dead ends or missing essential operations.

Resources

Need Help?