sqlguard_clientClassifies an agent wallet as a prior Exact-paying client (excluding operator wallets), returns lifetime USD, sku counts, and next ladder step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | Agent or wallet id to classify |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| next | No | ||
| client | No | ||
| skus_bought | No | ||
| lifetime_usd | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it classifies wallets, explicitly excludes operator wallets, and lists the specific return values. This goes beyond what annotations provide, though it does not discuss edge cases or error handling.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and packs in the key details (classification, exclusion, return values) without any wasted words. It is concise and complete.
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 tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail. It covers the core purpose and key behavioral nuance (exclusion of operator wallets). It could clarify domain terms like 'prior Exact-paying client' or 'ladder step,' but the output schema likely fills those gaps.
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?
The schema has 100% parameter description coverage for the single parameter (agent_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, simply restating that it takes an agent/wallet id.
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 uses a specific verb ('Classifies') and a specific resource ('agent wallet'), and clearly states the output ('lifetime USD, sku counts, and next ladder step'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Exact-paying client classification, which is unique among the listed sqlguard_* tools.
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 implies usage (classify a wallet to determine client status) but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions beyond 'excluding operator wallets.' No alternatives are named, so guidance is only implied.
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.
The tool set is dominated by overlapping buy/unlock paths (challenge, pilot, buy, catalog, cert, session, workday, sprint, profit, handshake) that are poorly differentiated, with many marked as legacy or off-table. Only a few tools (bind, gate, verify, effects) have clearly distinct roles.
All tools share the sqlguard_ prefix, but the second part is a mix of nouns, verbs, and vague branding (gravity, profit, sprint, handshake). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern, making it hard to predict a tool's purpose from its name.
24 tools is heavy for a permission gateway, and many are redundant legacy or alternative buy paths. While the count is within the 16-25 borderline range, the core functionality could likely be served by 8-10 tools.
The core authorization flow (handshake → challenge/unlock → bind/gate → verify) is present, but the surface is muddied by legacy and alternative paths that create dead ends. Missing tools for managing denials or configuring policies leave some gaps, though the central lifecycle is covered.