Decide Policy Notaries

Check return eligibility

return_eligibility

Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate whether a US consumer subscription purchase can be reversed under versioned source-backed rules. Returns UNKNOWN when required conditions are absent or manual review is required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plan`	Yes	Plan type. Currently only 'individual' plans are supported.
`region`	Yes	Region code. Currently only 'US' is supported.
`vendor`	Yes	Vendor identifier (lowercase, underscore-separated).
`days_since_purchase`	Yes	Number of days since the subscription was purchased.
`qualifying_conditions_met`	No	Required when the vendor policy has source-specific conditions such as first purchase, unused benefits, or an eligible annual plan.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes
`method`	No
`vendor`	No
`message`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes
`returnable`	No
`return_type`	No
`source_hash`	No
`evaluated_at`	No
`rules_version`	No
`policy_version`	No
`automation_safe`	No
`policy_evidence`	No
`rulebook_result`	No
`required_context`	No
`policy_source_url`	No
`return_window_days`	No
`days_since_purchase`	No
`policy_last_checked`	No
`policy_source_notes`	No
`policy_last_verified_utc`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 6, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / automation_safe
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / policy_evidence

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "checked_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "current": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "evaluated_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "policy": {
+      "enum": [
+        "refund",
+        "cancel",
+        "return",
+        "trial"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "policy_version": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reason": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "schema_version": {
+      "enum": [
+        "policy_evidence_v1"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "snapshot_generated_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "snapshot_hash": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source_hash": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "current",
+        "expired",
+        "unavailable",
+        "review_required"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "valid_until": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "vendor": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verified_at": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "schema_version",
+    "policy",
+    "vendor",
+    "status",
+    "reason",
+    "current",
+    "evaluated_at"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / returnable / type

Previous value: -"boolean"New value: +[
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]

First observedJul 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: outcomes are governed by versioned, source-backed rules, and the tool can return UNKNOWN when conditions are absent or manual review is required. This helps the agent anticipate nondeterministic or incomplete results.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds meaning: scope, rule basis, and the UNKNOWN fallback. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and key edge-case behavior. It does not explicitly explain how 'required conditions' maps to qualifying_conditions_met or how this differs from refund_eligibility, but the structured fields fill most of that gap.

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 the parameters thoroughly, including enums and qualifying_conditions_met semantics. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action and resource: evaluating whether a US consumer subscription purchase can be reversed under versioned source-backed rules. It clearly conveys what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish this return-eligibility check from the closely named sibling refund_eligibility.

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 its usage through the phrase 'Evaluate whether...', but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over refund_eligibility, cancellation_penalty, or trial_terms. There are no when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or alternative routing.

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

All Decide Policy Notaries tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.