Classification Receipt & Appeal Layer

verdict_query

Verdict query $0.05 (first free once per account+wallet); returns signed receipt or incomplete/contested

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>"
    },
    "name": "verdict_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agent_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the price ($0.05, first free per account+wallet) and possible outcomes (signed receipt or incomplete/contested), but omits permissions, rate limits, and what happens when no verdict exists.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The cost and return-state information appear immediately, though the terseness borders on under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about the return values, the parameter, and invocation context. It covers cost and outcome states but leaves critical gaps for a paid query tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The single parameter 'agent_id' has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description. The description does nothing to explain its meaning, format, or where to obtain it.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The phrase 'Verdict query' directly restates the tool name. The description adds pricing and possible return states, but does not clarify what a 'verdict' is or how this differs from siblings like verify_receipt or verify_attestation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only usage-adjacent information is the 'first free once per account+wallet' note, which is cost-related, not a selection criterion.

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

All Classification Receipt & Appeal Layer 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.

Resources

Need Help?