Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks

stock_replenishment_scenarios

[PAID $0.006 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453] Simulate supplied daily demand and planned receipts with a declared reorder-point/order-up-to policy, lead time, minimum order and exact lot multiple. Up to 10 scenarios, 365 contiguous days/scenario and 2000 total days. Net shortages carry as backlog; receipts and zero-day virtual orders arrive before demand. Not a demand forecast, supplier-capacity check or purchase. EOA EIP-712 payments only; ERC-1271/6492 unsupported. MCP body max 64 KiB. Experimental price; input facts are not authenticated.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "unit": "<unit>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "initial_quantity": "<initial_quantity>",
      "policy": "<policy>",
      "scenarios": "<scenarios>"
    },
    "name": "stock_replenishment_scenarios"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`unit`	Yes
`policy`	Yes
`scenarios`	Yes
`start_date`	Yes
`initial_quantity`	Yes
`planned_receipts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses cost ($0.006 USDC/call, x402, eip155:8453), hard limits (10 scenarios, 365 days/scenario, 2000 total days, 64 KiB body), semantics of net shortages carrying as backlog, receipt/virtual-order ordering before demand, and payment constraints (EOA EIP-712 only, ERC-1271/6492 unsupported). It also warns that input facts are not authenticated and pricing is experimental — exactly the caveats an agent needs.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the paid-invocation banner, then purpose, then limits and caveats — every clause carries information. The opening payment token is somewhat cluttered, but nothing is redundant.

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 complex 6-parameter, nested, no-annotation tool it covers cost, limits, ordering semantics and payment constraints well. The remaining gap is the response shape (no output schema and no statement of what the simulation returns), which an agent must guess.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it adds real meaning for the policy block (reorder point, order-up-to, lead time, minimum order, exact lot multiple) and the timing rule that receipts and zero-day virtual orders arrive before demand. It leaves 'unit', 'start_date', 'initial_quantity', and the fixed-6-decimal quantity format unexplained, so coverage is good but not complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (simulate) and resource (supplied daily demand + planned receipts under a reorder-point/order-up-to policy), which clearly separates it from forecast-style siblings. It never names a sibling tool outright, but the 'not a demand forecast, supplier-capacity check or purchase' clause draws the boundary by function rather than by tool name.

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?

Explicit exclusions are given ('Not a demand forecast, supplier-capacity check or purchase'), telling the agent when to look elsewhere. What is missing is a positive routing cue naming a concrete alternative (e.g. demand_lot_match) for the excluded cases.

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

All Novarithm Agent Hub: trust and commerce checks tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.