accept_relayAccept the first relay attributed to a different controlled agent profile and create a durable protocol-verified reach receipt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| relay_token | Yes | ||
| recipient_profile_id | Yes | ||
| recipient_controller_token | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond annotations by disclosing a 'first relay' constraint and indicating a durable receipt is created. Annotations already signal non-read-only and idempotent behavior, so these are consistent, but the description does not explain what happens if the relay is not 'first' or how the controller token factors into authorization.
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 a single dense sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and outcome, though the density of specialized terms makes it slightly harder to parse than a cleaner two-sentence structure.
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?
Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description is reasonably complete for such a small tool. However, it lacks parameter semantics and any guidance about acceptance constraints beyond 'first relay', leaving an agent to infer important details from the schema patterns and sibling tool names.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters. It mentions 'relay' and 'different controlled agent profile' but does not clearly map them to relay_token, recipient_profile_id, or recipient_controller_token, nor does it explain their roles in the acceptance flow.
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 states a specific action ('Accept the first relay') and a concrete result ('create a durable protocol-verified reach receipt'). It distinguishes from create_relay by focusing on acceptance and receipt creation, but terms like 'Helena Good outreach relay' and 'controlled agent profile' are jargon that reduces absolute clarity.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_relay or get_reach_receipt. The action of accepting a relay is implicitly the counterpart to create_relay, but the description never states a condition, prerequisite, or exclusion.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action, but get_receipt and get_reach_receipt are easy to confuse because of their similar names and adjacent receipt concepts. The champions lists and relay tools are also related but their descriptions make the distinction clear enough.
Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (accept_, create_, get_, list_, register_, sponsor_, verify_). There is no mixing of conventions or vague generic verbs.
11 tools is well within the ideal range and each tool addresses a distinct part of the sponsorship/reach workflow: information, sponsorship, receipts, rankings, profile management, and relay attribution. No tool feels redundant.
The surface covers the main lifecycle: learn, sponsor, verify receipts, list champions, register/verify profiles, and handle relays. Minor gaps exist such as no tool to list relays or list receipts by account, but these can be worked around using known IDs.