Skip to main content
Glama

Handoff acceptance check

wever_handoff-acceptance-check
Read-only

Agent Handoffs: submit a handoff flow: each sender-to-receiver route with how the receiver confirms it has taken the task (an explicit acceptance, only a delivery receipt from the transport, or nothing), when the sender lets go (on acceptance or on send), how long the sender waits for acceptance and whether each acceptance is recorded, plus optionally the transfers made on those routes with when each was sent, accepted and released. The signed report names every route where the sender lets go on send or the receiver confirms nothing, every route that takes a delivery receipt for acceptance, has no acceptance window or keeps no record of acceptance, and every transfer let go with no acceptance, let go before its acceptance or accepted after its window, with the fix for each. This reads who holds a task between send and acceptance: what happens after a receiver refuses, fails or goes quiet is wever_handoff-failure-check, a delivered result against its order is wever_result-validation-check and a job’s work against its acceptance criteria is wever_deliverable-check. Verdict work_can_drop, acceptance_gaps, acceptance_unverified or held_until_accepted. POST /api/handoff-acceptance-check. Reads only the material in the call: no network request, fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write. Paid URL: 0.10 USDC per call on Base via x402 exact, with the shared 10 signed-wallet free calls per rolling 30 days. Bind X-Wever-Wallet-Proof to the exact JSON arguments and the tool route. Returns a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. Contract: /api/agent-handoffs-contract. Human page: https://weverlabs.com/agent-handoffs/.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNoOptional name recorded in the report.
routesYesEach sender-to-receiver route in the handoff flow.
transfersNoHandoffs made on these routes, with when each was sent, accepted and released.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the call reads only supplied material with no network fetch, money movement, message, sharing, configuration change or external write; states the exact x402 pricing (0.10 USDC on Base) and the 10 free signed-wallet calls per rolling 30 days; names the required X-Wever-Wallet-Proof binding to the JSON arguments and route; and states the response is a report with an Ed25519 signed receipt. It also enumerates the verdict values returned. This is unusually rich disclosure and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The scope statement is front-loaded and the sibling routing is well placed, but the middle of the description is one long run-on enumeration of every finding the report can produce, which partially duplicates the parameter semantics already in the schema. Endpoint, contract path, and human URL are appended in a way that reads as reference boilerplate rather than agent-facing guidance. It is information-dense rather than padded, but it could be materially shortened.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return: it names the four verdicts, enumerates the finding classes, and states that the report is signed with an Ed25519 receipt. It also covers authentication, pricing, and the endpoint. For a read-only analytical tool with a fully documented schema, nothing the agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents label, routes, and the nested route/transfer fields, including the enum meanings for acceptance and sender_releases. The description restates the same semantics ('an explicit acceptance, only a delivery receipt from the transport, or nothing') without adding format or constraint detail the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no meaning beyond the structured fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool takes a handoff flow (routes with acceptance behaviour, sender release timing, acceptance window, recording, optional transfers) and produces a signed report of acceptance gaps. 'This reads who holds a task between send and acceptance' is a precise one-line statement of what the check evaluates, and it is explicitly differentiated from three named siblings. It loses a point only because the leading verb 'submit a handoff flow' describes input submission rather than the analysis itself, so the actual check must be inferred from the later sentence.

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?

It names three alternative tools with the condition that selects each: wever_handoff-failure-check for post-delivery refusal/failure/silence, wever_result-validation-check for a delivered result against its order, and wever_deliverable-check for work against acceptance criteria. That is strong routing guidance. It stops short of an explicit 'call this when' statement or a 'do not use this for' exclusion, so the usage boundary is implied rather than fully stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.