ASPERN: counterparty checks for agents

Who runs the money, and how much is theirs

operator_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

The question that follows vault_check: who runs the money, and how much of it is their own. Free. Read ownShare with its limits, which travel inside it: the leader’s holding is readable on Hyperliquid and Drift ONLY, so elsewhere it is ABSENT and not zero, the median describes the strategies we can read rather than the manager, and a large own-share is evidence of alignment and never proof, because the address running a vault can be a treasury or a custodian holding for other people. cannotSee names whatever of that applies here. Take the slug from vault_check’s operator.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The operator’s slug, as vault_check returns it in `operator.slug`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`name`	Yes	The operator’s name as published. Their words, not an identity we verified.
`says`	Yes	The operator in one sentence, including what we cannot see about them — own-capital share is readable on two venues only.
`ownShare`	No	Median share of the vault its leader holds, the count it is taken over, and what it does and does not mean.
`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
`capitalUsd`	No	Capital across every open strategy we read for this operator. Null where none of them can be priced.
`strategies`	No	How many open and closed, and on which platforms.
`agentManaged`	No	How many of their open strategies we have reason to call agent-managed. A COUNT of strategies, never a share of the capital.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / meta

Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / warnings

Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / agentManaged / description

Added value: +"How many of their open strategies we have reason to call agent-managed. A COUNT of strategies, never a share of the capital."

addedOutput schema / properties / capitalUsd / description

Added value: +"Capital across every open strategy we read for this operator. Null where none of them can be priced."

addedOutput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"The operator’s name as published. Their words, not an identity we verified."

addedOutput schema / properties / says / description

Added value: +"The operator in one sentence, including what we cannot see about them — own-capital share is readable on two venues only."

AddedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

It is 'free,' and it discloses interpretive behavior annotations cannot: the leader's holding is readable on Hyperliquid and Drift ONLY, so elsewhere it is ABSENT and not zero; the median describes strategies-we-can-read rather than the manager; a large own-share is evidence of alignment and never proof because the address may be a treasury or custodian. This is exactly the kind of data-semantics context that makes results usable, well beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the caveats, with no filler — every clause carries an interpretation rule. The prose is dense and slightly rhetorical, but nothing is redundant given how much nuance is packed in.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described; the description instead supplies the interpretation caveats (absence vs. zero, median scope, cannotSee) and the input's origin. Complete for an agent to call it correctly and read the result sensibly, with only minor room to say more about edge cases.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single documented `slug`, so the baseline is 3; the description adds the provenance value ('as vault_check returns it in operator.slug'), telling the agent where to source the value rather than just its type.

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 frames the tool as 'the question that follows vault_check: who runs the money, and how much of it is their own,' which identifies the resource (the operator behind a vault) and the key output (ownShare) while explicitly positioning it relative to the sibling vault_check. It is slightly metaphorical ('who runs the money') rather than a literal verb+resource, but an agent can still distinguish it from siblings.

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 a clear sequencing rule: use this after vault_check and take the input 'from vault_check's `operator`.' That is actionable invocation guidance. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or listing alternative siblings beyond vault_check.

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.

Resources

Need Help?