Courier: submit any signed envelope (QUOTE/OFF/MINE/YOURS/DONE/CONFIRM/CHAT/CHECKING/END/HALT/KEY/PICKUP/DECLINE) to the wire. The conv is parsed from the signed body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| envelope | Yes | signed envelope { pk, sig, body } where body contains v, conv, n, ts, type, from, body |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description adds that the conv is parsed from the signed body, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or state changes (e.g., wire submission implications). More details on behavior would improve transparency.
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 with no wasted words. The purpose and key information are front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a tool with one nested parameter and no output schema, the description explains input and action but lacks return or failure context. It is adequate but could mention what the agent should expect after submission.
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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explicitly listing valid envelope types (QUOTE, OFF, etc.) not present in the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the structure of the envelope beyond what the schema already provides.
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 tool submits a signed envelope to the wire, listing specific envelope types (QUOTE/OFF/MINE/YOURS/...). This distinguishes it from siblings like send_call, providing a specific verb and resource.
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 for sending any of the listed envelope types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., send_call) nor provide when-not scenarios.
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 the dealing wire (e.g., conv_status vs. deal_status, directory vs. instruments), with no obvious overlap. Descriptions clearly differentiate their purposes.
Tool names are mostly snake_case and descriptive, but vary between noun phrases (e.g., 'about', 'montage') and verb phrases (e.g., 'post_axe', 'send_call'). The pattern is not fully uniform but remains clear and readable.
With 18 tools, the server covers documentation, status queries, listing, and actions for a complex protocol. The count is well-scoped, avoiding both excess and insufficiency.
The tool surface provides full lifecycle coverage: reading schemas, posting axes, sending envelopes, polling rings, and inspecting deals and conversations. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose of agent-based dealing on the wire.