ASPERN: counterparty checks for agents

Due diligence on an ACP provider

agent_dd_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Due diligence on an ACP provider before hiring it: does it finish the work, who said the work was done, who pays it, is the record current, who is behind it, is it on a sanctions list. Each answer has a status and what would settle it. No score and never a statement that the agent is safe. applies is false for an address with no paid ACP job and judged completion, and that is not a finding about the agent. ACP is read on Base only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "agent_dd_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`address`	Yes	The ACP provider you are about to hire.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`asOf`	No
`meta`	No	How current this answer is and what it was read from: `freshness` and the ages behind it. Present on every answer from this server, whatever the tool.
`says`	Yes
`guard`	Yes
`status`	Yes	caution, no_warning_found or not_established.
`address`	Yes
`answers`	Yes
`applies`	Yes	False means this address has no paid ACP job with a judged completion, so the report has nothing to build on. It is not a finding about the agent.
`delivery`	No
`warnings`	No	Anything the server wants a caller to know about THIS answer before acting on it. Empty is the normal case and is not a guarantee.
`cannotSee`	Yes
`appliesSays`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important interpretation behavior: each answer has a status and a settling condition, the report is not a score and never declares the agent safe, and `applies=false` is explicitly not a finding about the agent. It also scopes reads to Base, adding meaningful operational context not present 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose and checks are front-loaded, followed by the key caveats and scope limit in a compact sequence. The list of checks is long but each item adds substantive coverage, and there is no boilerplate or redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only due-diligence report with an output schema and fully documented input, the description covers scope, interpretation limits, the `applies` edge case, and chain restrictions. Nothing critical to correct invocation is left unstated.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single `address` parameter already describes itself as the ACP provider about to be hired. The description adds chain scope ('Base only') but no address syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource as an ACP provider and enumerates the specific checks it reports on: completion, attestations, payment, recency, operator, and sanctions. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related hire or counterparty checks, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear timing ('before hiring it') and a scope limit ('ACP is read on Base only'), which is enough to know when this tool applies. It does not give explicit exclusions or route to an alternative for non-ACP or non-Base addresses, so it has clear context but not full when-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ASPERN: counterparty checks for agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.