Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Firewall order check

wever_firewall-order-check

Read-only

Agent Control: submit a payment firewall’s design: its checks with where each runs (before the order, before settlement, after settlement or alongside it) and what a failure does, its cap with its scope and what counts toward it, the paths an order takes to settlement (retry, split, reorder, manual) and what it records. The signed report names every check that runs after settlement instead of before it, every path that bypasses the cap, and whether passes and rejects are both recorded with the order, size, check, result, reason and time. Verdict settles_unchecked, enforcement_unverified, record_incomplete or enforced. POST /api/firewall-order-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-control-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-control/.

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": {
      "checks": "<checks>"
    },
    "name": "wever_firewall-order-check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cap`	No
`label`	No	Optional name recorded in the report.
`paths`	No	Ways an order reaches settlement.
`checks`	Yes	Checks the firewall performs.
`records`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the tool reads only call material with no network/fetch/money movement, that it is paid at 0.10 USDC per call with 10 free signed-wallet calls per 30 days, that X-Wever-Wallet-Proof must bind to the exact JSON arguments and route, and that it returns an Ed25519 signed receipt. This is rich behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

The purpose and required design elements are front-loaded, followed by report contents, verdicts, endpoint, payment, and contract links. It is dense and long but each block carries distinct information; minor redundancy in the payment/contract tail keeps it from a 5.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex nested-input tool with no output schema, the description explains the verdict set (settles_unchecked, enforcement_unverified, record_incomplete, enforced) and what the signed report names, which is enough for an agent to call it correctly. It stops short of describing the full report structure, but the verdict enumeration largely compensates.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 60% schema coverage and nested objects, the description adds real meaning: it explains that checks carry where each runs and what a failure does, that the cap has a scope and what counts toward it, and that paths cover retry/split/reorder/manual. It maps the design semantics onto the parameters rather than restating the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('submit a payment firewall's design') and enumerates exactly what the design must contain (checks with run locations, cap with scope, settlement paths, records). This is far more specific than the sibling check tools and lets an agent distinguish it from generic payment-policy checks.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies the use case (submitting a firewall design for verification) and states the read-only, no-side-effect nature, but never explicitly says when to choose this over siblings like wever_payment-policy-check or wever_spending-policy-check, nor any prerequisites beyond the wallet proof.

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

All Wever Labs Agentic Rails 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?