Boundary Guard x402

Generate Trust Receipt

generate_trust_receipt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a deterministic trust receipt from sanitized request/policy/result/payment summaries. Do not submit raw auth headers, cookies, API keys, private keys, payment signatures, payment response headers, customer prompts, customer documents, or payer-identifying evidence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`policy`	No	Sanitized policy or decision summary to hash.
`result`	No	Sanitized outcome/result summary to hash; omit customer data and secret-like values.
`payment`	No	Optional sanitized payment summary or caller-provided hashes only; do not include raw payment signatures, raw payment response headers, private keys, API keys, cookies, payer-identifying evidence, or wallet secrets.
`request`	Yes	Sanitized request/action summary to hash; omit raw prompts, documents, credentials, cookies, auth headers, signatures, and secrets.
`nextStep`	No	Optional receipt next-step guidance.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`decision`	Yes
`nextStep`	No
`createdAt`	Yes
`receiptId`	Yes
`evidenceHash`	Yes
`claimBoundary`	Yes
`marketplacePositioning`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds the 'deterministic' trait and a critical security warning about omitting raw auth headers, cookies, keys, etc. This goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and provides practical behavioral guidance for safe invocation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, with the main purpose first. The second sentence is a long list of prohibited data types, which is a bit dense but still structurally clear. Overall efficient.

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?

The tool has an output schema and 5 parameters with rich schema descriptions. The description covers input constraints but omits when to use the tool in context with sibling tools. Given the complexity, the description is adequate but not complete.

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?

Since all 5 parameters have detailed schema descriptions (100% coverage), the baseline is 3. The tool description's security warning is somewhat redundant with schema descriptions but does consolidate a global constraint, adding marginal value.

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 states 'Generate a deterministic trust receipt from sanitized request/policy/result/payment summaries' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like boundary_guard_check or generate_x402_launch_pack which serve different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for generating trust receipts from sanitized data but provides no explicit 'when to use' vs alternatives. It does not mention alternatives or conditions for use, so guidance is only implied.

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

All Boundary Guard x402 tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between boundary_guard_check and generate_trust_receipt (both produce receipts) and between check_agent_tool_readiness and scan_x402_resource (both assess readiness/metadata). The descriptions are detailed enough to guide selection, but the boundary between these pairs could confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent. Most tools start with a verb (check, generate, probe, scan), but boundary_guard_check starts with a noun, and verbs are not systematically chosen (e.g., check vs. scan for similar operations). This mixed pattern makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is well within the ideal range and each covers a distinct aspect of x402/agent readiness, from scanning to receipts to launch packs. No tool feels redundant or missing for the core use case of read-only, pre-action auditing.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the primary workflows: pre-action checking, readiness verification, trust receipt generation, launch pack creation, and x402 probing. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to directly manage or list existing receipts/packs, but the core read-only and generative functions are well represented.

Resources

Need Help?