Freeze all open events into an immutable invoice (exactly-once). The invoice amount is what agent-escrow-agent should settle.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meter_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses immutability and exactly-once behavioral traits, which are important. However, with no annotations, it misses side effects like event accessibility changes, auth requirements, or idempotency details.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with key action and outcome. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.
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 an output schema, the description lacks parameter explanation and usage context. It covers the core action but is incomplete for a tool with no annotations.
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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'meter_id' parameter (what it is, how to obtain it, or its format). No added meaning beyond the schema.
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 clearly states it freezes open events into an immutable invoice and mentions exactly-once semantics. It specifies the action and resource, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_events or record_usage.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for finalizing a period but lacks when-not or prerequisite information.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of usage metering: creating meters, recording events, generating reports, flagging synthetic data, closing periods, and verifying chain integrity. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., close_period, create_meter, list_events). No deviations or mixed conventions.
With 11 tools, the set is well-scoped for a metering server. It covers creation, recording, listing, reporting, admin flags, period closing, and chain verification without being unnecessarily large.
The core lifecycle is covered: create meter, record usage, list events, generate reports, close period. Missing are tools to update/delete meters or retrieve invoices, but these are minor gaps given the immutable design intent.