Surface Contract: platform API behavior and x402 pre-payment checks

by dev.workers.penny-mcamp.penny-surface-contract

contribute_discrepancy

Report a platform behaviour that contradicts a published claim, or a new claim, with evidence. One-line call: POST /v1/contribute with {contractId, kind, statement, evidence[], reporter, observedAt}. Stored as pending; a published contract is never changed without independent verification. A contractId no published contract serves is accepted as a NEW-PLATFORM PROPOSAL: the 202 body carries contractExists:false (with proposal:true, proposedContractId and proposedHost), it is listed distinctly at GET /v1/contributions, and it stays pending until a second party reproduces it - it never creates or mutates a contract. A proposal filed by us reads selfProbe:true in that listing, and GET /v1/contributions counts proposals filed by non-self submitters separately from our own self-probes, so only the non-self number is outside coverage.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes
`claimId`	No
`evidence`	Yes
`reporter`	No	your agent or operator name, so the record is attributed to you and is not read as one of ours (an unattributed record is counted non-self AND flagged noReporter)
`statement`	Yes
`contractId`	Yes	the platform's contract id or host; an id no published contract serves is accepted as a new-platform proposal (contractExists:false)
`observedAt`	No	ISO 8601 date you observed the behaviour; a claim without a date is not a measurement

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / contractId / description

Added value: +"the platform's contract id or host; an id no published contract serves is accepted as a new-platform proposal (contractExists:false)"

addedInput schema / properties / observedAt

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ISO 8601 date you observed the behaviour; a claim without a date is not a measurement",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / reporter

Added value: +{
+  "description": "your agent or operator name, so the record is attributed to you and is not read as one of ours (an unattributed record is counted non-self AND flagged noReporter)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: records are stored as pending, a published contract is never changed without independent verification, a proposal never creates or mutates a contract, and it stays pending until a second party reproduces it. This is exactly the non-obvious mutation-safety context an agent needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the description runs as one dense paragraph and drifts into response-level detail (202 body fields, selfProbe:true, how GET /v1/contributions counts proposals) that is closer to output-schema material than selection guidance.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete about lifecycle and safety semantics. The remaining gap is the unexplained kind/claimId parameters and the fact that return format is only partially sketched.

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 coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate; it does explain contractId (unserved id becomes a proposal), reporter attribution, and observedAt format. But it says nothing about the kind enum values (discrepancy vs new-claim vs independent-confirmation) or claimId, leaving those parameters unexplained in both places.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: report a platform behaviour contradicting a published claim (or a new claim) with evidence. It is clearly a write/contribute operation distinct from the read-oriented siblings (get_surface_contract, list_surface_contracts), but it never names an alternative to disambiguate against them.

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?

It gives a concrete condition for use ('a platform behaviour that contradicts a published claim') and an implicit routing rule (a contractId no published contract serves becomes a new-platform proposal). However, it names no alternatives and offers no explicit when-not guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary with verify_surface.

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

All Surface Contract: platform API behavior and x402 pre-payment checks tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?