draft_authority_mandateValidate a non-authoritative mandate draft for an exact principal, agent, scope, time window, and budget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| max_runs | No | ||
| allowed_rails | No | ||
| allowed_tools | No | ||
| permission_mode | No | ||
| max_amount_units | No | ||
| allowed_resources | No | ||
| consent_reference | No | ||
| identity_provider | No | ||
| principal_reference | No | ||
| public_activity_consent | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-mutating nature. The description adds that it validates a draft, implying no side effects, but does not disclose behavior like validation failure handling, return format, or specific criteria checked. Some value is added beyond annotations, but not rich context.
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 sentence with no filler, starting with the verb 'validate' and immediately specifying the resource and scope. It is efficient and well-structured for readability.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (12 optional params, no output schema, no parameter descriptions), the description is too thin. It lacks essential context about validation outcomes, required fields, how the listed dimensions map to schema properties, and what 'non-authoritative' means in practice.
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?
With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate significantly. It only provides high-level categories (principal, agent, scope, budget) without mapping them to specific parameter names, and it omits several params like permission_mode, consent_reference, and identity_provider. The 'time window' mention has no corresponding parameter in the schema.
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 'validate' and identifies the resource as a 'non-authoritative mandate draft' with clear dimensions (principal, agent, scope, time window, budget). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_authority_mandate and execute_delegated_action.
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 implies usage for validating a non-authoritative mandate draft, but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of when to use this instead of inspecting an authoritative mandate or evaluating an authority action.
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.
With 89 tools, there is extensive overlap. For example, multiple tools handle completing paid rail runs (complete_agent_self_serve_paid_rail_run, complete_paid_rail_run_with_callback, run_stripe_receipt_completion) and several verify receipts (verify_receipt, verify_managed_receipt_signature, verify_signature_by_version). Distinguishing between these without deep inspection is nearly impossible.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., start_rail_run, get_run_status, verify_receipt). However, there are minor deviations like 'credential_aware_mcp_write' which is not verb-first, making it slightly inconsistent. Overall the naming is quite uniform.
89 tools is an extreme count, far beyond the typical 3-15 or even 25+. This suggests the server is trying to cover too many sub-domains, making the tool surface unwieldy and difficult to navigate.
The tool surface is extremely broad, covering discovery, quoting, payment, run lifecycle, receipts, credentials, directory submission, compliance, and verification. It lacks some expected operations like cancellation or refund, but these are niche and the core workflows are well-covered.