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 / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueInput schema / minPropertiesRemoved value: -1Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[]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, but the description says "Bind an A2A task to a transaction" and explicitly discusses authority transfer, which suggests a state-changing association rather than a read-only operation. The description also adds cost and signing details, but the mutation/read-only inconsistency is a serious contradiction.
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 main action, but its structure is awkward: a semicolon followed by a price fragment and a sentence fragment. It is concise but not cleanly structured.
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?
An output schema exists and annotations cover safety traits, so the description need not explain return values. Still, the description leaves unclear what "binding" actually does, whether it is read-only, and why a cost is attached, which is inadequate given the ambiguity.
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 tool reports zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description mentions the A2A task and transaction, which aligns with the schema example, and no further parameter semantics are required.
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 specific verb and resources: "Bind an A2A task to a transaction." However, the scope is muddied by the fragment "without silently transferring authority.; 0.004 USDC" and there is no differentiation from siblings such as transaction_assurance or rwa_transaction_assurance.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tools are alternatives. The constraint phrase "without silently transferring authority" hints at a safety condition but does not provide actionable usage criteria.
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.