Quote a payout: runs the same policy evaluation POST /v1/route would, returning allow/deny, the reasons and the fee split. Settles NOTHING and writes NO ledger entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| memo | No | Optional memo recorded with the request payload. | |
| amount | Yes | Amount in USDC. | |
| destination | Yes | Destination wallet address on Arc. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it specifies that the tool returns allow/deny, reasons, and a fee split, and explicitly states it 'settles NOTHING and writes NO ledger entry.' This gives the agent full confidence about side-effect-free behavior.
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, front-loaded sentence that delivers purpose, return values, and the critical no-side-effect guarantee with zero wasted words.
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 read-only quote tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition covers what it does, what it returns, and what it explicitly does not do. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing, and it even clarifies the return shape despite no output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb (quote) and resource (payout), and clearly distinguishes this from the mutating sibling gatepay_route by noting it runs the same policy evaluation but settles nothing. An agent can immediately tell this is a dry-run quote tool.
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?
It clearly implies usage context—run this to preview policy decisions without committing—by contrasting with gatepay_route's behavior. However, it does not explicitly say 'use gatepay_route to actually execute' or 'use this when you only need a quote,' leaving a small inference gap.
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.