a2a_transaction_bridgeBind an A2A task to a transaction without silently transferring authority.; 0.004 USDC. Deterministic, evidence-bounded and signed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "source": {
+ "id": "a2a-task-1"
+ },
+ "transaction": {
+ "id": "tx-1"
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating no side effects. The description states it 'Bind[s] an A2A task to a transaction' and charges '0.004 USDC', which implies a state-mutating action with a monetary side effect, directly contradicting the read-only annotation.
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 short and front-loads the intended action, but it is fragmented and includes unexplained elements like '0.004 USDC' and a trailing adjective list. The semicolon creates an awkward break, reducing clarity.
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?
Although an output schema exists and annotations are present, the description is incomplete for a transaction-related bridge. It omits usage context, prerequisites, and any explanation of the binding behavior, which is essential given the tool's apparent financial and authority implications.
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?
There are 0 defined parameters per the context, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details, but there are no parameters to document beyond the free-form example in the schema.
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 names a verb ('Bind') and two resources ('A2A task', 'transaction'), but the relationship and purpose remain opaque due to unexplained jargon. It does not differentiate from the many sibling payment/transaction tools, leaving the agent to infer the exact operation.
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?
No guidance on when or when not to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no alternatives mentioned. The description offers only a cryptic condition ('without silently transferring authority') that does not help an agent choose between this and the numerous sibling tools.
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.