Skip to main content
Glama

warda

by io.github.ArtyKOMarkets

Would this payment be allowed?

warda_check_spend

Check a proposed payment against every rule the covenant enforces, and return the same verdict the chain would. Builds the recipient proof for you. ADVISORY: a 'permitted' answer is not permission — it means the covenant would accept this transaction. A 'refused' answer means no valid transaction exists, so broadcasting one would only waste a fee.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
grantYesThe grant, as issued by the principal.
daaScoreYes
amountKasYesAmount to pay, in KAS.
recipientYesPayee public key, 32 bytes of hex.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool evaluates against every covenant rule, returns the chain's verdict, and automatically builds the recipient proof. The advisory warning that 'permitted' is not permission adds important behavioral nuance. It does not explicitly state that the tool has no side effects or broadcasting behavior, but 'check' and 'advisory' strongly imply a non-mutating evaluation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the action and outcome, the second mentions a useful support behavior, and the third conveys an essential advisory nuance. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary length or repetition.

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?

For a complex tool with a nested grant object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and the two possible verdicts. However, it does not explain what daaScore means, how to supply a valid grant state, or the exact structure of the returned verdict beyond 'permitted' and 'refused.' The description is adequate for understanding the tool's purpose but incomplete for fully confident invocation in edge cases.

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?

The schema already documents amountKas and recipient with descriptions, and the grant has a brief top-level description. The tool description does not add much meaning beyond what the schema provides, and daaScore is left semantically unexplained. With approximately 75% schema description coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds some framing but does not compensate fully for the undocumented daaScore parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check a proposed payment against every rule the covenant enforces' and states the key output, 'return the same verdict the chain would.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling builders like warda_build_spend by focusing on evaluation rather than construction. The title 'Would this payment be allowed?' reinforces the intent.

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 contextual guidance: this is an advisory check before broadcasting, and it explains the meaning of both 'permitted' and 'refused' outcomes. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the advisory framing and 'proposed payment' language imply the appropriate use case.

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

All warda toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct role: build_* assembles different transaction types, check_* validates proposals, grant_* derives or reports grant state, and recover_grant restores state from chain data. Even the similar-looking exit and settlement are clearly separated by destination: principal versus parent budget.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is mostly consistent with a warda_<verb>_<noun> pattern, e.g. build_delegation, check_spend, recover_grant. Two tools, grant_address and grant_authority, are noun phrases rather than verb_noun, so the pattern is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a distinct part of the grant lifecycle: building, checking, querying, settling, exiting, and recovering. There is no obvious redundancy or unnecessary surface area.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core lifecycle well: delegation, spending, settlement, exit/revoke, address derivation, authority checks, and recovery. The main gap is that advisory checking is provided for spend and delegation but not for exit or settlement, so the validity of those operations must be worked around via covenant behavior or other tools.

Resources