read_agent_self_serve_paid_rail_loopReturn the machine contract for agent discovery, quote, payment, run, return package, and receipt proof.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the description's 'Return' action, and the description adds useful context about the contents of the returned contract. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, size, or any required prerequisites. With annotations covering the read-only safety aspect, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 ('Return the machine contract') and efficiently lists the components covered. No words are wasted, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
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 tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned but leaves the term 'machine contract' undefined. The enumeration of phases provides some context, but an agent may not know the structure, format, or purpose of the contract without more detail. The description is minimally sufficient but lacks depth.
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, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when there are no parameters, and the description does not conflict with this. No additional parameter information is needed.
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 specific verb 'Return' with a clear resource ('the machine contract') and enumerates the process phases it covers (discovery, quote, payment, run, return package, receipt proof). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that start or complete runs. However, the term 'machine contract' is somewhat ambiguous, preventing a perfect score.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_agent_self_serve_paid_rail_loop or complete_agent_self_serve_paid_rail_run. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
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.