Request a WHP Standing Evaluation. First call returns the exact HTTP 402 payment terms. Supply only the buyer’s own pre-authorized payment signature on retry. Paying does not establish standing; a failed assessment has no Mark.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_proof | Yes | ||
| submission_raw | Yes | ||
| payment_signature | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, but the description goes beyond by disclosing the payment requirement, the retry mechanism, and the consequence of failed assessments. This is substantial behavioral context not captured in annotations.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and then essential behavioral details. No wasted words, and the structure is efficient.
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?
The description covers the payment flow but lacks explanation of the input parameters (submission_raw, client_proof) and does not describe the output or success criteria beyond the 402 response. With no output schema, the description should provide more context about what the evaluation returns or how success is indicated.
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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies payment_signature ('buyer’s own pre-authorized payment signature on retry') but offers no explanation for submission_raw or client_proof. The description only partially addresses the parameters, leaving two required fields unexplained.
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 the action ('Request a WHP Standing Evaluation') with a specific resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings (whp_standing_contract, whp_standing_result), but the purpose is unambiguous and the context implies it is the initial evaluation request.
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?
Provides clear usage flow: first call returns payment terms, retry with pre-authorized signature. Also notes that paying does not establish standing and failed assessments have no Mark, which guides when to use and what to expect. However, it does not mention when to use this tool vs. the sibling tools.
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.