Wever Labs Agentic Rails

Issue a trading or treasury mandate

wever_mandate-issue

Idempotent

Declare trading or treasury and register its principal-approved exact version. Costs $2.00 (2.00 USDC on Base). POST /api/mandate-issue. Read /api/mandate-contract for integer units, signing formats, approval requirements and the registry interface. Issue and amend use the existing x402 payment rail. Status, halt and revoke have no payment requirement. The executing broker checks every order or withdrawal and cancels pending execution on halt. Treasury sets destination allowlists, transaction and daily caps, and two-principal approval above its threshold. The registrar timestamps versions and chain fingerprints. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/trading-mandate/.

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": {
      "mandate": "<mandate>",
      "approval": "<approval>"
    },
    "name": "wever_mandate-issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mandate`	Yes
`approval`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the $2.00 USDC-on-Base cost, the POST endpoint, x402 payment behavior, and how status/halt/revoke differ. It also explains downstream enforcement, halt cancellation, treasury controls, and registrar timestamping, which are valuable behavioral traits for an agent invoking this mutation.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose, cost, endpoint, and the documentation pointer, and most sentences carry useful context. It is somewhat long and includes adjacent broker/halt and human-page details, but there is little outright waste for a complex paid mutation tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complex nested schema, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the definition is only partially complete. It explains the conceptual profile differences and payment behavior well, but does not describe the response shape or provide inline guidance for many approval and mandate fields, instead relying on an external contract page.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful high-level semantics for the two top-level parameters, including trading versus treasury profiles, principal approval, destination allowlists, caps, and dual approval, and it points to /api/mandate-contract for integer units and signing formats; however, many nested fields remain unexplained inline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: declare a trading or treasury mandate and register its principal-approved exact version. It also names sibling operations (amend, status, halt, revoke) and distinguishes their payment behavior, so the agent can identify this tool without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when this tool applies and contrasts it with amend, status, halt, and revoke via the x402 payment rail. It does not explicitly state the first-issuance versus amendment routing rule, but the alternatives and payment condition are named.

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?