warda_grant_authorityReport a grant's remaining authority: budget left, epoch headroom, per-transaction cap, and the largest single payment permitted right now. Use this before planning a purchase. Advisory — the covenant enforces these limits whether or not you ask.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| grant | Yes | The grant, as issued by the principal. | |
| daaScore | Yes | Current DAA score of the chain. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does so well by stating this is advisory and that limits are enforced whether or not the agent asks, which clarifies this is a read-only/informational call. It could add more detail about side effects or authorization requirements, but the advisory framing is substantive.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool reports, and the second provides use context and important advisory behavior. Every clause earns its place.
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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return content in user-facing terms and gives clear invocation context. It is slightly light on exact output shape or examples, but the combination of a 100%-covered input schema and a descriptive two-sentence summary is sufficient for correct selection and 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents grant and daaScore adequately. The description adds high-level meaning by linking the reported values to grant parameters, but it does not need to elaborate further because the schema covers the parameter semantics.
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 names a specific action ('Report') and a clear resource ('a grant's remaining authority'), then enumerates the exact outputs: budget left, epoch headroom, per-transaction cap, and largest single payment permitted now. This clearly differentiates it from sibling build/check tools, which construct or inspect transactions rather than report spending capacity.
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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool: 'Use this before planning a purchase.' It also notes the advisory nature, indicating the covenant enforces limits regardless. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it stops 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.