Preflight a requested payment rail before Trust Reflex. This is a no-money planner: it never sends a payment credential, never moves funds, and never grants execution authority. Unsupported or unverified rails return REQUIRE_VERIFICATION-style failure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| rail | No | ||
| asset | No | ||
| network | No | ||
| base_rail | No | ||
| authorization_protocol | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It compensates well by explicitly stating three non-actions: 'never sends a payment credential, never moves funds, and never grants execution authority.' It also reveals the failure behavior for unsupported or unverified rails, though it does not cover authentication, rate limits, or idempotency.
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 three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the operation, the second eliminates execution risk, and the third states the failure mode.
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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about return behavior and how to interpret results. It mentions REQUIRE_VERIFICATION-style failure but never describes the success path or what a successful preflight returns. With six optional parameters and zero schema descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete for reliable autonomous invocation.
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%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It references a 'requested payment rail' but does not explain mode, asset, network, base_rail, authorization_protocol, or how they interact. The enums in the schema provide some value, but the description itself leaves most parameter semantics to inference.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Preflight a requested payment rail before Trust Reflex.' It immediately differentiates itself from execution-oriented siblings like trust_action and invoke_trust_service by explicitly labeling itself a 'no-money planner' that never sends credentials, moves funds, or grants execution authority.
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 clearly places the tool before Trust Reflex and frames it as a preflight planning step rather than an execution step. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to understand when this tool fits in the workflow.
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.
There is some overlap among get_service_catalog and get_trust_layer_pricing, since both surface pricing information, and between invoke_trust_service and trust_action, since both use x402 challenges and payment signatures. The descriptions help clarify differences, but an agent could still misselect when trying to choose between the generic bridge and the Trust Reflex preflight.
Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern: get_capabilities, get_service_catalog, get_trust_layer_pricing, invoke_trust_service, and select_assurance_tier are all imperative and readable. trust_action breaks the pattern slightly, reading more like a noun phrase than an action command, but it is still understandable alongside the others.
Six tools is well-scoped for a trust-layer server focused on discovery, pricing, fee calculation, and x402 payment flow. Each tool has a defined role in the set, and the count does not feel too heavy or too thin.
The surface covers the main workflow well: capabilities discovery, service catalog, pricing, assurance tier fee calculation, generic service invocation, and preflight trust checks. A minor gap is the lack of a direct tool for checking remaining free quota or payment/verification status, but the core trust and payment lifecycle is represented.