Skip to main content
Glama

SqueezeOS — Institutional AI Market Intelligence

Commit Read Terms

commit_read_terms
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the live SML Commit terms: price, decision outcomes, and rules. Use this when an agent needs the exact commit-check terms to quote to a caller before any payment. Returns the terms document. Read-only and idempotent; no side effects. On error, returns a structured error. For example, read terms to confirm the $0.001 USDC price before quoting a commit check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okNoWhether the upstream HTTP status is 2xx; not settlement proof.
bodyNoUnmodified upstream JSON, or bounded response text. Consult that capability's live schema.
errorNo
chargedNoPresent on local/transport failures; these do not establish an upstream charge.
messageNo
auto_spentNo
status_codeNoObserved upstream HTTP status, or null when no response was obtained.
substitutedNo
content_typeNo
payment_requiredNoObserved PAYMENT-REQUIRED header; a challenge does not prove payment.
payment_responseNoObserved PAYMENT-RESPONSE header. Assess it together with accepted delivery.
caller_supplied_authorizationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "additionalProperties": true,
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "required": [
      +        "ok",
      +        "status_code"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "required": [
      +        "error"
      +      ]
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "description": "Canonical REST response envelope, or a local/transport rejection. Upstream data remains in body and is defined by the live capability schema.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "auto_spent": {
      +      "const": false
      +    },
      +    "body": {
      +      "description": "Unmodified upstream JSON, or bounded response text. Consult that capability's live schema."
      +    },
      +    "caller_supplied_authorization": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "charged": {
      +      "const": false,
      +      "description": "Present on local/transport failures; these do not establish an upstream charge."
      +    },
      +    "content_type": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "error": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "message": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "ok": {
      +      "description": "Whether the upstream HTTP status is 2xx; not settlement proof.",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "payment_required": {
      +      "description": "Observed PAYMENT-REQUIRED header; a challenge does not prove payment.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "payment_response": {
      +      "description": "Observed PAYMENT-RESPONSE header. Assess it together with accepted delivery.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "status_code": {
      +      "description": "Observed upstream HTTP status, or null when no response was obtained.",
      +      "maximum": 599,
      +      "minimum": 100,
      +      "type": [
      +        "integer",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "substituted": {
      +      "const": false
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description partly repeats those. It earns credit for adding behavior beyond the annotations: it returns the terms document and returns a structured error on failure, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage, then behavior, and it stays short. The closing example sentence and the restated 'read-only and idempotent; no side effects' are mildly redundant given the annotations, costing a point.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not explain the return shape, and it covers what the tool does, when to call it, and error behavior. It would be fully complete if it positioned itself relative to adjacent commit/x402 tools.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed to fetch the terms.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (SML Commit terms) and enumerates what it contains: price, decision outcomes, and rules. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like commit_discover_effects or x402_contract, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives clear usage context: 'use when an agent needs the exact commit-check terms to quote to a caller before any payment,' and the example reinforces the pre-quote timing. It offers no explicit when-not or named alternative, 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources