ASPERN: counterparty checks for agents

What changed on a vault (paid)

vault_drift

Idempotent

What changed on one vault, day by day, between the stored daily due-diligence reports: the overall assessment (including when it became withheld or published again), each risk dimension, the withdrawable share, capital, control roles and the timelock, and the tested withdrawal. Paid ($0.01). A change can be the vault, what we could read, or our model; days with no stored report are listed under gaps and not compared. Quote limits with it.

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "vault_drift"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Window, 2 to 90 days. Default 30.
`slug`	Yes	Vault slug or contract address.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gaps`	No	Days with no stored report; not compared.
`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`	No	The answer in one sentence.
`slug`	Yes	The vault, as resolved.
`limits`	Yes	What a change here can and cannot mean. Quote it.
`changes`	Yes	Per pair of days with a change: from, to, both digests and changes[] with kind, what, before, after, direction and says.
`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.
`documents`	No	Stored reports in the window.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new context: it is a paid call ($0.01), days with no stored report are excluded from comparison and surfaced under `gaps`, and changes may reflect the vault, our read coverage, or the model rather than the vault itself. That last caveat materially changes how an agent should interpret and report results.

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 outcome ('what changed'), then the compared dimensions, then caveats and price. The enumerated list of dimensions is long but each item is functional. Slightly dense in a single block, but there is no filler.

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 shape need not be explained, and the description still covers the interpretive hazards an agent needs: gaps, ambiguous causes of change, and the `limits` reference. What is missing is any pointer to sibling tools for a point-in-time read, which would round out routing.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (`slug`, `days`) are already documented with ranges and defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'What changed on one vault, day by day, between the stored daily due-diligence reports', and enumerates the dimensions compared (assessment, risk dimensions, withdrawable share, capital, roles, timelock, tested withdrawal). This distinguishes it from point-in-time siblings like vault_due_diligence and vault_risk_dimensions without the agent needing to open a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the 'day by day, between stored reports' framing and the note that days without a stored report go under `gaps`, which tells the agent when comparisons are meaningful. However, it never names an alternative or says explicitly when to pick this over vault_due_diligence or vault_check. The 'Quote `limits` with it' line is output guidance, not tool-selection 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.