Dry-run a payment BEFORE executing it: checks on-chain whether the agent's smart account would allow it (permission granted, within financial cap, destination approved if a whitelist exists). Returns { allowed, reason }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| amount_eth | Yes | Amount in ETH, e.g. '0.001' | |
| destination | Yes | Destination address to pay | |
| agent_address | Yes | Ethereum address of the agent (its smart account address) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool is a dry-run (no execution), performs on-chain checks, and returns an explicit structure { allowed, reason }. It also details what conditions are checked, which goes beyond a basic read-only hint.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the most important information (dry-run before execution) and then packs in the checks and return format. Every clause adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 3 fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the return value shape and explains the criteria, which covers the essential context. It could further elaborate on what the 'reason' might contain, but the tool's simplicity and the clear return type make this adequate.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies agent_address as the smart account address and explains that destination approval depends on a whitelist, but these are already partially implied by the parameter descriptions. No significant enhancement.
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: a dry-run check for payment allowance. It uses a specific verb ('Dry-run') and identifies the resource (payment) and the specific checks performed (permission, cap, whitelist). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like payment_status or payment_required by explicitly framing it as a pre-execution check.
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 timing ('BEFORE executing it'), implying when to use the tool. It does not mention alternatives by name, but the context of checking before execution gives sufficient guidance for an agent selecting this tool from a payment-related sibling set.
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.
Several tools overlap in the information they return: get_agent_info, verify_agent, and is_agent_revoked all provide agent status or verification details. Descriptions help distinguish raw registry data from a comprehensive verification check, but the boundaries are somewhat blurry, potentially leading to misselection.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, is_, log_, report_, verify_), with no mixed casing or unconventional naming. The use of different verbs for different actions is logical, though the get_ prefix dominates the read operations.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped and falls within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a distinct need in the domain of agent identity verification and action logging, and none feel superfluous or redundant.
The server covers reading agent information, verifying identity, and logging actions, but lacks essential lifecycle operations such as registering, updating, or revoking agents. While this may be intentional for an external registry, it leaves notable gaps for a fully self-contained tool set.
