evaluate_agent_commerce_proofEvaluate an agent return package and return five scores, a continuation decision, a signed Agent Commerce Passport, and receipt verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mandate | No | ||
| agent_id | No | ||
| asset_id | No | ||
| asset_ticker | No | ||
| mission_type | No | ||
| return_package | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations set readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutating operation. The description adds context about producing a signed passport and receipt verification, implying side effects like signing, but does not disclose whether it persists results, consumes the return package, or requires special permissions. It does not contradict annotations but leaves state-change implications vague.
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 lists all key outputs without fluff or repetition. Every word contributes to specifying 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?
This is a complex tool with six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and several overlapping siblings. The description does not explain what the five scores represent, the nature of the continuation decision, how receipt verification works, or the role of mission_type. It is too sparse to provide complete operational context.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It only mentions 'agent return package' (mapping to return_package) but fails to explain mandate, agent_id, asset_id, asset_ticker, mission_type, or how these interact. With six undocumented parameters, the description adds almost no semantic value beyond the schema's field names.
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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Evaluate an agent return package' and enumerates distinct outputs (five scores, continuation decision, signed Agent Commerce Passport, receipt verification). This differentiates it from siblings like fetch_return_package or publish_verified_commerce_proof.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and sibling context.
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.