enforce_sla[Ledger product, entitlement: ledger] Enforce an SLA/obligation by recomputation: the obligation is met only if the work verifies GREEN against its claimed digest. 3 free calls/day, then entitlement 'ledger'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inputs | Yes | The work payload to verify. | |
| obligation | No | Human-readable obligation label. | |
| claimed_digest | No | Claimed digest the obligation is conditioned on. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the safety annotations (e.g., `idempotentHint: true`), the description provides high-value behavioral context by explaining the core logic: the enforcement happens through recomputation and a green verification. It also introduces a rate limit (3 free calls).
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 extremely concise and dense, front-loading critical business logic and operational constraints (recomputation, green verification, rate limits) without any 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?
Despite having no output schema, the definition is complete for a tool of this nature. It defines the conditions for success (green verification) and the operational boundaries (rate limits and entitlement).
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the definition meets the baseline for parameter semantics. It adds high-level context to the input structure by classifying the inputs as the 'work payload to verify' and the 'claimed digest the obligation is conditioned on.'
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 tool clearly states its purpose is to 'Enforce an SLA/obligation by recomputation.' It identifies the action (recomputation) and the mechanism (verifying work against a claimed digest).
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 definition sets clear usage criteria: the obligation is met 'only if the work verifies GREEN.' Additionally, it provides crucial operational constraints regarding call limits (3 free calls/day).
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.