revettr-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure and does so excellently. It reveals JWS signing, operator-gated access via admin_token checked against REVETTR_ADMIN_TOKEN, disabled behavior when env var is unset, sensitivity of admin_token in MCP transcripts, and verification steps against JWKS. These are substantive behavioral traits beyond basic action.

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 four sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, compliance context, authentication, and verification. It is somewhat lengthy but not verbose; every sentence contributes to operational understanding. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (auth, signing, compliance) and presence of an output schema, the description covers key operational aspects: JWS signing, verification procedure, disabled state, and sensitivity of logs. It doesn't detail error conditions, but the output schema likely handles return format. The reference to docs/audit-trail-export.md adds completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains wallet_address and admin_token but entirely omits start and end parameters, leaving their purpose ambiguous. For a tool with four params, this is a significant gap.

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 function: 'Export a JWS-signed audit-trail bundle of scoring decisions for a wallet.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like score_counterparty (scoring) and verify_issuer (verification). The mention of the MCP equivalent of GET /v1/audit/export further clarifies its role.

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 provides clear usage context by labeling it as a 'Compliance artifact for EU AI Act Article 12 logging / NYDFS certification / debanking-defense.' It also notes operator-gating and prerequisites (admin_token, env var). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (risk score 0-100) and accepted input categories, which is useful. But it omits behavioral details such as how multiple parameters are handled (e.g., precedence), whether the operation is read-only, or any rate limits or prerequisites. This is not misleading but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output. Every word adds value, and no redundant details are present.

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 6 optional parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. The output schema exists, so return details are covered, but critical input selection semantics are missing. The agent doesn't know if it should provide one identifier or many, which parameters are exclusive, or what the 'chain' parameter controls. This gap hinders correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the only guide. It maps input types to parameters (EVM wallets, Stellar wallets, domains, IPs, company names) but does not explicitly name all parameter fields or explain the 'chain' parameter. It also doesn't state whether exactly one identifier is required or how combinations behave, leaving ambiguity.

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: 'Score a counterparty before sending money' with a specific verb 'score' and resource 'counterparty'. It also specifies the output ('risk score 0-100'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like verify_issuer and export_audit_bundle, which have distinct operations.

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 phrase 'before sending money' provides a clear use context. It also lists accepted input types, giving guidance on what to pass. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, missing some exclusionary guidance.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the advisory and non-blocking behavior, signed response type, and equivalence to an API endpoint. It describes the tool as adding a risk layer, giving the agent clear expectations. Minor gap: no mention of error behavior or side effects, but for a verification tool this is reasonable.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the action and adds only essential context. No fluff, clear structure.

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 simple verification tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and behavior well. However, it fails to describe 3 of 4 parameters, leaving gaps in operational understanding. The presence of output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but parameter semantics remain incomplete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only explains 'iss' as the validated issuer; chain, iss_kind, and wallet_address are left to schema defaults and names, with no added semantic context. This leaves the agent guessing about expected values and meaning.

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 'Get an advisory risk verdict for a validated MCP issuer', identifying the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on issuer risk verdict, as opposed to export_audit_bundle or score_counterparty.

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?

Provides explicit placement guidance: 'Attach this at your MCP `iss` validation step' and clarifies its role: 'identity is your job, this adds risk.' It also notes advisory, non-blocking nature, guiding when to use. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state exclusions.

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