get_evidence_signal_requirementsReturns MUJ428 evidence-check payment, network, endpoint, and assurance-pricing requirements before an autonomous payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing a safe read operation. The description adds specific categories of returned requirements, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or potential edge cases, similar to the TDQS 4.3 calibration example.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and conveys all essential information without redundancy or filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description provides adequate context about the return content and usage timing. However, the cryptic identifier 'MUJ428' is unexplained, and without an output schema, more detail on the structure of the returned requirements would improve completeness.
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, making the schema fully definitive. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is appropriate for an empty input schema; the baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 uses the verb 'Returns' with a specific resource: MUJ428 evidence-check payment, network, endpoint, and assurance-pricing requirements. This definitively states the tool's function and distinguishes it from any potential alternatives, even in the absence of sibling tools.
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?
The description explicitly indicates the tool should be used 'before an autonomous payment,' providing a clear temporal usage context. With no sibling tools, explicit alternatives are unnecessary, though no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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.
The two tools have clearly distinct responsibilities: one fetches requirements, the other performs the trust decision. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.
The 'get_' prefix is a recognizable convention, while 'trust_action' is less pattern-consistent. However, with only two tools, the naming is still readable and functional.
Two tools is on the thin side but arguably appropriate for a focused trust-layer purpose. Each tool is value-relevant, yet the surface is minimal.
The pair covers core trust evaluation and evidence retrieval, with no clear dead ends. Some post-decision management tools could be missing, but the main autonomous-payment call path is complete.