proofrelay.review_wire_payoff_changeReview hash-only wire, payoff, or disbursement change metadata for red flags and required controls without approving funds movement.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| wire_change | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds transparency by noting 'hash-only' (limiting to hashes) and 'without approving funds movement,' which aligns with readOnly and complements the annotations. It does not contradict annotations and provides extra context about the nature of the review.
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, concise sentence that packs essential information without fluff. It is well-structured and directly states the action and scope.
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?
Given the complexity of the tool (an object parameter and likely analysis output), the description provides sufficient context for a user to understand the review's purpose and constraints. It implies what the review covers (red flags, required controls) but does not elaborate on return format, which is acceptable as an output schema exists.
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 description adds some semantic context by mentioning 'wire, payoff, or disbursement change metadata,' which maps to the change_type field, and 'hash-only' clarifies the data format. However, it does not explain individual properties within the wire_change object, so the schema remains the primary source for parameter details.
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 purpose: reviewing hash-only wire, payoff, or disbursement change metadata for red flags and required controls. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on wire/payoff changes and explicitly stating it does not approve funds movement.
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 implicitly guides usage by indicating it reviews changes and explicitly states 'without approving funds movement,' providing a clear when-not scenario. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or compare with sibling review tools, leaving some ambiguity.
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.
All 26 tools have distinct names that clearly indicate their purpose (e.g., adapt_agent_identity_evidence vs. build_audit_pack_manifest). No two tools have overlapping or ambiguous functions, even though some share similar verbs; the nouns and description contexts differentiate them effectively.
The tool names follow a uniform convention: all start with 'proofrelay.' and use lowercase verb_noun with underscores (e.g., proofrelay.build_bundle_draft, proofrelay.verify_signed_attestation). There is no mixing of camelCase, across the entire set.
The server exposes 26 tools, which exceeds the 'borderline' range of 16–25 and falls into the 'too many' category (>25). While the tools cover a broad domain (evidence verification, risk scanning, etc.), the large number might overwhelm agents and suggests that some tools could be merged or the scope narrowed.
The tool set covers a comprehensive range of operations—adapting, building, verifying, scanning, recommending, and summarizing—across multiple subdomains (identity, payment, audit, etc.). Minor gaps exist, such as missing tools for updating or deleting evidence, but overall the surface appears very complete for the described functionality.