sqlguard_sdkReturns npm/CDN install for sqlguard-client and the wealth ladder (handshake→Pilot Challenge $100 / Gateway $299 → verify). Session/Instant OFF TABLE as primary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| install | No | ||
| upsell_ladder | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output's content (install plus wealth ladder) and marks Session/Instant as off the table, but this added context is not clearly explained and no other behavioral details are provided.
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 short and front-loads the main action, but the second sentence 'Session/Instant OFF TABLE as primary' is poor prose and hurts readability. It is compact but not cleanly structured.
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?
For a parameterless, read-only informational tool with an output schema, the description covers the key call content: installation snippet and wealth ladder. It is reasonably complete, though the jargon phrase and lack of sibling routing prevent a perfect score.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is fully described (100% coverage, additionalProperties false), so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns the baseline 4.
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 names a concrete verb and resource: it returns the npm/CDN install for sqlguard-client and the wealth ladder (handshake → Pilot Challenge → Gateway → verify). It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as sqlguard_client or sqlguard_gate, and the phrase 'Session/Instant OFF TABLE as primary' is cryptic, so it is not fully precise.
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 purpose implies when to use it: when a user needs installation commands or the upsell ladder. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, does not name an alternative sibling, and 'OFF TABLE as primary' is too vague to serve as a usable exclusion rule.
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.
Multiple tools occupy the same job: challenge and pilot both sell the $100/7-day PASS; buy/catalog/cert/session/workday/validate are all legacy prepaid paths; handshake/protocol/require/sdk all provide onboarding/compliance guidance. Descriptions add PRIMARY/LEGACY labels, but an agent still has to parse heavy cross-references to avoid picking the wrong payment or authorization tool.
All tool names share the consistent sqlguard_ prefix and lower_snake_case style, and each name maps to a recognizable concept. However, the set mixes noun labels (denials, gravity, session) with verb labels (bind, buy, verify), so it is not a strict verb_noun API convention.
24 tools sits at the top of the 'heavy but borderline' range. Many could be collapsed because the legacy prepaid paths (session, workday, cert, buy, catalog, validate) are explicitly marked OFF TABLE for the primary wealth path, leaving redundant surface area.
The core lifecycle is well covered: handshake/onboarding, challenge/pilot unlock, bind/gate/verify pre-execution checks, denials inventory, effects verification, and client status. Minor gaps exist only around explicit invoice/refund/revocation tooling, but those appear to be handled externally or by expiry.